Page 10 of 12 FirstFirst 123456789101112 LastLast
Results 181 to 200 of 232

Thread: Robert E. Lee vs The Duke of Wellington

  1. #181

    Default Re: Robert E. Lee vs The Duke of Wellington

    Quote Originally Posted by Centurion-Lucius-Vorenus View Post
    And yet again, i previously asked you why the sources were questionable, and you declined to even respond. So you've fallen into a circular argument, in fact you have been using it for a while now.
    Not really. It's simple repetition. Your correct CoA should have been to move to another, unrelated, source corroborating your supposition. Staking everything on a single source is generally bad.

    FWIW, like prettymuch all books, Chandler's Campaigns is not a bad starting point on what physically happened, but it's a terrible book on why things happened.

    And this matters how ?
    (shakes head)

    Napoleon's mastery of propaganda is well known (see http://www.gutenberg-e.org/haw01/frames/fhaw02.html and http://www.amazon.ca/dp/1853675423), his mistakes were generally covered up, often by blaming his Marshals. For example, at Jena-Auerstedt Napoleon refused to believe Davout was engaged with the main Prussian force at Auerstedt, breaking the French army apart.

    Fortunately it was Davout that took the heat, and he defeated a Prussian Army outnumbering him 3:1. Napoleon, chastised him and awarded no honours for Auerstedt, only for Jena. Most books (and wikipedia) note he later changed his mind about Davout, they don't mention that it was over 2 years later.

    Again, its not rubbish. I've already proven that Napoleon's panning was not 'slipshod', it was in fact very meticulous, it's a well known fact. But yet again, you could not answer me when i dealt with this issue.
    I've told, referenced, and demonstrated the opposite. Your only response has been to deny it, rather than actually countering my argument.

    Again, wrong. Napoleon designed to block off every escape route, and by route of the manouvre sus derrieres he would completely destroy Mack. He did that. Your assumption is not only wrong, it's also against Napoleons belief in the indirect approach.
    Then how did 2/3rds that Austrian force successfully disengage? Again, you're dealing with the justification after the fact, rather than what actually happened. Napoleon had no belief in the "indirect approach". Quite the opposite, he believed in aggressively attacking the enemies head on. We have Jomini to thank for his revisionism for any idea Napoleon had an "indirect approach". This thinking, without experience to back it up, caused a lot of damage in the American Civil War.

    Wrong again, as i have said (And yet again you have refused to answer) that a demi-brigade in the French army at that time were more then usually comprised of 2 volunteer battalions and 1 regular battalion's, however regular battalions were sometimes under-strength, and in short supply. In fact, there were 15 demi-brigades in the French army composed completely of volunteers.
    Great, and ca 100 that were old Royal Regiments. The performance of those volunteer battalions was generally abysmal.

  2. #182
    Centurion-Lucius-Vorenus's Avatar Protector Domesticus
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    In a cottage cheese cottage in Levittown, New york
    Posts
    4,219

    Default Re: Robert E. Lee vs The Duke of Wellington

    Quote Originally Posted by 67th Tigers View Post
    Not really. It's simple repetition. Your correct CoA should have been to move to another, unrelated, source corroborating your supposition. Staking everything on a single source is generally bad.

    FWIW, like prettymuch all books, Chandler's Campaigns is not a bad starting point on what physically happened, but it's a terrible book on why things happened.
    Unless you can come up with something that's actually wrong with Chandler then i see no reason why i should not source him.

    I find it ironic, that you are now attacking a source while at the time i first posted him you backed off completely.


    Quote Originally Posted by 67th Tigers View Post
    (shakes head)

    Napoleon's mastery of propaganda is well known (see http://www.gutenberg-e.org/haw01/frames/fhaw02.html and http://www.amazon.ca/dp/1853675423), his mistakes were generally covered up, often by blaming his Marshals. For example, at Jena-Auerstedt Napoleon refused to believe Davout was engaged with the main Prussian force at Auerstedt, breaking the French army apart.Fortunately it was Davout that took the heat, and he defeated a Prussian Army outnumbering him 3:1. Napoleon, chastised him and awarded no honours for Auerstedt, only for Jena. Most books (and wikipedia) note he later changed his mind about Davout, they don't mention that it was over 2 years later.
    Napoleon and Davout's relationship, was shaky for the much better part of it. And second of all, the Emperors original harshness was soon overturned. Davout was named duc d'Auerstedt after all anyways. Plus, he was given the honor of being the first to lead his corps through Berlin.

    Quote Originally Posted by 67th Tigers View Post
    I've told, referenced, and demonstrated the opposite. Your only response has been to deny it, rather than actually countering my argument.
    Again, wrong. You have never referenced it, if you would pick up a book then you would no that you are wrong.

    Jonathon Riley (A field general himself) says of Napoleon in Napoleon as a general....

    'Napoleon would at once commence detailed research and planning, studying the relevant geography, history, climate and culture'

    Quote Originally Posted by 67th Tigers View Post
    Then how did 2/3rds that Austrian force successfully disengage?
    Actually out of give or take 70,000 men, Mack lost around 60,000. So you either have your facts wrong, or you never quite grasped 5th grade Fractions. It could also be both.

    Quote Originally Posted by 67th Tigers View Post
    Again, you're dealing with the justification after the fact, rather than what actually happened.
    Yet you have been factually wrong about every single thing about the Ulm Campaign, and you still have the audacity to make that claim ?


    Quote Originally Posted by 67th Tigers View Post
    Napoleon had no belief in the "indirect approach".


    You know, I thought that i had seen it all from you. But this just made my goddamn day.


    Quote Originally Posted by 67th Tigers View Post
    Quite the opposite, he believed in aggressively attacking the enemies head on.
    Without tiring my fingers with furious typing to prove just how wrong you are, how foolish you have been and how childish your knowledge of Napoleon is i will disprove you with one simple question. If Napoleon believed in head-on attacks, then why did he almost never use them in grand and campaign strategy ? In fact, Borodino was one of the only major battles where Napoleon used this, and he was sick at the time.


    Quote Originally Posted by 67th Tigers View Post
    We have Jomini to thank for his revisionism for any idea Napoleon had an "indirect approach".
    You have to be the 9/11 truther of history.......

    Quote Originally Posted by 67th Tigers View Post
    This thinking, without experience to back it up, caused a lot of damage in the American Civil War.
    Actually, civil war casualties were very comparable to the casualties in the Napoleonic war's, despite the advances in technology.


    Quote Originally Posted by 67th Tigers View Post
    Great, and ca 100 that were old Royal Regiments. The performance of those volunteer battalions was generally abysmal.
    Besides the point, you claimed that the Regular army was still intact, and it's obvious that it was not.

  3. #183

    Default Re: Robert E. Lee vs The Duke of Wellington

    Quote Originally Posted by Centurion-Lucius-Vorenus View Post
    Unless you can come up with something that's actually wrong with Chandler then i see no reason why i should not source him.

    I find it ironic, that you are now attacking a source while at the time i first posted him you backed off completely.
    Quote away, but I know how useless parts of that work are. Chandler started the "Napoleon never did any wrong" revisionism, Riley (who you quote below) was one of Chandler's students, and not surprisingly they sing off the same songsheet. They're hardly Griffith, Haythornthwaite or Nosworthy, or even Strachan or Muir.

    Napoleon's flaws as a commander were well known when Chandler wrote his Campaigns, yet he chose to ignore them.

    Napoleon and Davout's relationship, was shaky for the much better part of it. And second of all, the Emperors original harshness was soon overturned. Davout was named duc d'Auerstedt after all anyways. Plus, he was given the honor of being the first to lead his corps through Berlin.
    Davout's duchy was given two years later, after Napoleon had gotten as much mileage as possible out of Jena.

    Actually out of give or take 70,000 men, Mack lost around 60,000. So you either have your facts wrong, or you never quite grasped 5th grade Fractions. It could also be both.
    27,000 out of 73,000 is prettymuch 1/3rd. I'd be impressed if Mack lost 60,000. He never got that many onto the field at Ulm.

    Without tiring my fingers with furious typing to prove just how wrong you are, how foolish you have been and how childish your knowledge of Napoleon is i will disprove you with one simple question. If Napoleon believed in head-on attacks, then why did he almost never use them in grand and campaign strategy ? In fact, Borodino was one of the only major battles where Napoleon used this, and he was sick at the time.
    The fact of the matter is that he did generally attack head on, often with the intent of enveloping (and usually with Soult), but head on he did attack. His generally intent was usually to force the enemy to thin out his lines, then throw a battering ram of a formation (ultimately d'Erlon's Corps at Waterloo) frontally at what he perceived as the weak point.

    Actually, civil war casualties were very comparable to the casualties in the Napoleonic war's, despite the advances in technology.
    Not really, no. They tend to be a lot less bloody.

    Besides the point, you claimed that the Regular army was still intact, and it's obvious that it was not.
    Because they renumbered the Regiments? Because those regiment absorbed new recruits?

  4. #184
    Centurion-Lucius-Vorenus's Avatar Protector Domesticus
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    In a cottage cheese cottage in Levittown, New york
    Posts
    4,219

    Default Re: Robert E. Lee vs The Duke of Wellington

    Quote Originally Posted by 67th Tigers View Post
    Quote away, but I know how useless parts of that work are. Chandler started the "Napoleon never did any wrong" revisionism, Riley (who you quote below) was one of Chandler's students, and not surprisingly they sing off the same songsheet. They're hardly Griffith, Haythornthwaite or Nosworthy, or even Strachan or Muir.
    Have you even read Chandler ? It is established quickly that Napoleon had flaws.

    Quote Originally Posted by 67th Tigers View Post
    Napoleon's flaws as a commander were well known when Chandler wrote his Campaigns, yet he chose to ignore them.
    Chandler note's Napoleons flaws, you just make them up and spit out historical fiction.

    Quote Originally Posted by 67th Tigers View Post
    Davout's duchy was given two years later, after Napoleon had gotten as much mileage as possible out of Jena.
    'Plus, he was given the honor of being the first to lead his corps through Berlin.'

    forgetting something ?


    Quote Originally Posted by 67th Tigers View Post
    27,000 out of 73,000 is prettymuch 1/3rd. I'd be impressed if Mack lost 60,000. He never got that many onto the field at Ulm.
    You do realize that their was a whole campaign named after Ulm right ? Actually, thats probably expecting to much from you.

    Quote Originally Posted by 67th Tigers View Post
    The fact of the matter is that he did generally attack head on, often with the intent of enveloping (and usually with Soult), but head on he did attack. His generally intent was usually to force the enemy to thin out his lines, then throw a battering ram of a formation (ultimately d'Erlon's Corps at Waterloo) frontally at what he perceived as the weak point.
    How your piecing this together i have no clue. Apparently your mixing parts of Waterloo with earlier campaigns to somehow prove that Napoleon was in favor of massed frontal attacks. Now first off, i would get your head checked. Second of all, have you ever heard of the Manouvre sus derrieres ? How do you explain that the aforementioned move being the most used and most successful strategy used by Napoleon and your claim that Napoleon 'did not believe in the indirect approach'

    Quote Originally Posted by 67th Tigers View Post
    Not really, no. They tend to be a lot less bloody.
    Russian Casualties at Borodino were 40,000 give or take which is roughly a 1/4th of the army. Casualties for the Austrians at Wagram were very Similar. These are two of the bloodiest battle of the Napoleonic war, and yet they have very similar figures in comparison with Gettysburg.

    Quote Originally Posted by 67th Tigers View Post
    Because they renumbered the Regiments? Because those regiment absorbed new recruits?
    No, because A)the army as of early as 1793 was a mash of Regular, volunteer and legionary soldiers and B) Most of the Demi-brigades in the early years were composed of two batallions of Volunteers and 1 of regulars, however, there were 15 demi-brigades composed of completely volunteer troops.

  5. #185

    Default Re: Robert E. Lee vs The Duke of Wellington

    Quote Originally Posted by Centurion-Lucius-Vorenus View Post
    Have you even read Chandler ? It is established quickly that Napoleon had flaws.

    Chandler note's Napoleons flaws, you just make them up and spit out historical fiction.
    Yes, a long time ago.


    'Plus, he was given the honor of being the first to lead his corps through Berlin.'

    forgetting something ?
    I don't see how march order is an honour. This again is something made up after the fact I think.

    You do realize that their was a whole campaign named after Ulm right ? Actually, thats probably expecting to much from you.
    So, no actual counterargument?

    How your piecing this together i have no clue. Apparently your mixing parts of Waterloo with earlier campaigns to somehow prove that Napoleon was in favor of massed frontal attacks. Now first off, i would get your head checked. Second of all, have you ever heard of the Manouvre sus derrieres ? How do you explain that the aforementioned move being the most used and most successful strategy used by Napoleon and your claim that Napoleon 'did not believe in the indirect approach'
    No, the movement in question was as described earlier, forcing the enemy to thin out the line by threatening to envelop, then throwing a battering ram frontally at the perceived weak point. It didn't work at Waterloo because Wellington refused to play to it, and his battering ram (d'Erlon's Corps) hit a strong point, with much heavy artillery opposition than the French normally encountered, solid infantry and 6 brigades of cavalry ready to sabre them.

    Had Napoleon been interested in a turning movement, then Hal would have been the obvious choice. Indeed, Wellington had detached his 4th Corps d'Armee to Hal to guard against much a movement.

    Russian Casualties at Borodino were 40,000 give or take which is roughly a 1/4th of the army. Casualties for the Austrians at Wagram were very Similar. These are two of the bloodiest battle of the Napoleonic war, and yet they have very similar figures in comparison with Gettysburg.
    16% US casualties in "America's bloodiest day" (Antietam), 15,000 out of 90,000. Not very bloody at all. Of course, 30,000 troops deserted that night.....

    No, because A)the army as of early as 1793 was a mash of Regular, volunteer and legionary soldiers and B) Most of the Demi-brigades in the early years were composed of two batallions of Volunteers and 1 of regulars, however, there were 15 demi-brigades composed of completely volunteer troops.
    Who were all largely absorbed into the pre-revolutionary regiments, and adopted their traditions.

  6. #186
    Centurion-Lucius-Vorenus's Avatar Protector Domesticus
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    In a cottage cheese cottage in Levittown, New york
    Posts
    4,219

    Default Re: Robert E. Lee vs The Duke of Wellington

    Quote Originally Posted by 67th Tigers View Post
    Yes, a long time ago.
    '
    Chandler note's Napoleons flaws, you just make them up and spit out historical fiction.'


    You forgot this too.

    Quote Originally Posted by 67th Tigers View Post
    I don't see how march order is an honour. This again is something made up after the fact I think.
    Your thoughts have little historical basis, as we have seen.

    Secondly, how is being given the order to be the first to ride through the undefended capital of a conquered enemy not an honor ?


    Quote Originally Posted by 67th Tigers View Post
    So, no actual counterargument?
    It doesn't require a counter argument as their is no argument on your part. You referred to the tactical battle at Ulm and somehow forgot their was a whole campaign named after it.


    Quote Originally Posted by 67th Tigers View Post
    No, the movement in question was as described earlier, forcing the enemy to thin out the line by threatening to envelop, then throwing a battering ram frontally at the perceived weak point.
    Wrong, It wasn't that simple. Le manoeuvre sur les serrieres intends to 'pin' the enemy force by a feint attack, then by use of maneuvering through a 'safe' route which would be hidden by the cavalry screen and natural obstacles to place himself at the flank of the foe. Once this Occurred, the natural barrier would be closed off, and all crossings would be monitored in order to form a 'strategic curtain' from which he can Isolate his victim. Thereafter, He relentlessly advances towards the enemy and gives them two options, to fight for his own survival on the ground of his enemy choice or two surrender.

    Thats far from a simple envelopment.


    Quote Originally Posted by 67th Tigers View Post
    It didn't work at Waterloo because Wellington refused to play to it, and his battering ram (d'Erlon's Corps) hit a strong point, with much heavy artillery opposition than the French normally encountered, solid infantry and 6 brigades of cavalry ready to sabre them.
    Again, wrong. The Field of Waterloo was too small for Napoleon to employ the maneuver, plus the grounds muddy as it was would make such elaborate maneuvering impossible.

    Quote Originally Posted by 67th Tigers View Post
    Had Napoleon been interested in a turning movement, then Hal would have been the obvious choice. Indeed, Wellington had detached his 4th Corps d'Armee to Hal to guard against much a movement.
    Wellington also Failed to recall him when it became Apparent that Napoleon would not attack via the west. If he had indeed recalled him then He would of had 17,000 more men and a distinct advantage in Numbers over Napoleon.

    Quote Originally Posted by 67th Tigers View Post
    16% US casualties in "America's bloodiest day" (Antietam), 15,000 out of 90,000. Not very bloody at all. Of course, 30,000 troops deserted that night.....
    Way to fail tigers, you seem to forget that at the Time Antietam was indeed America's bloodiest day, casualties like that had never been seen by Americans before.


    Quote Originally Posted by 67th Tigers View Post
    Who were all largely absorbed into the pre-revolutionary regiments, and adopted their traditions.
    How would the be absorbed into Regular regiments if that type of organization was dissolved by the Revolution ? Your speaking babble.

  7. #187

    Default Re: Robert E. Lee vs The Duke of Wellington

    Quote Originally Posted by Centurion-Lucius-Vorenus View Post

    Your thoughts have little historical basis, as we have seen.

    Secondly, how is being given the order to be the first to ride through the undefended capital of a conquered enemy not an honor ?
    The reports back to Paris (written by Napoleon) simply talk of Napoleon entering Berlin. He didn't share any glory. That Davout had the leading Corps is inconsequential, Napoleon took all the glory for himself, as he had done on many occasions. It was his modus operandi to claim glory, even when it wasn't due (such as Marengo, Napoleon lost the battle, and then Desaix won it back) and blame others for his mistakes.

    It doesn't require a counter argument as their is no argument on your part. You referred to the tactical battle at Ulm and somehow forgot their was a whole campaign named after it.
    No, I know the difference, but you conflated the campaigns casualties with those sustained on the field of Ulm, and you're now try to dig out of the mistake.

    Wrong, It wasn't that simple. Le manoeuvre sur les serrieres intends to 'pin' the enemy force by a feint attack, then by use of maneuvering through a 'safe' route which would be hidden by the cavalry screen and natural obstacles to place himself at the flank of the foe. Once this Occurred, the natural barrier would be closed off, and all crossings would be monitored in order to form a 'strategic curtain' from which he can Isolate his victim. Thereafter, He relentlessly advances towards the enemy and gives them two options, to fight for his own survival on the ground of his enemy choice or two surrender.
    No, that's not a manoeuvre sur les derrieres at all. It is, as previously described, a feint flanking movement to force a weakening of the line, then a frontal strike at a weak point.

    What you're describing is a mix of a turning movement and a coup de main, two separate movements.

    Again, wrong. The Field of Waterloo was too small for Napoleon to employ the maneuver, plus the grounds muddy as it was would make such elaborate maneuvering impossible.
    So little understanding! Do you even know where Halle is?

    How would the be absorbed into Regular regiments if that type of organization was dissolved by the Revolution ? Your speaking babble.
    and so your argument becomes circular....

    I will be plain.

    The 1er through 101e and 105e through 110e Ligne were old Royal Regiments, and despite absorbing new recruits remained true to this heritage, and did the 1er through 12e Legere, 1er and 2eme Carabiniers, 1er through 13e Chasseurs a Cheval, 1er through 12e Cuirassiers, 1er through 18e and 22e through 27e Dragons, and 1er through 8e Hussards. All these regiments retained their identity for the entire duration (although several light horse regiments were converted to Lanciers, they took their traditions with them).

    102e through 104e and 111e through 118e Ligne were new regiments, 119e and 120e Ligne were skipped and not formed until 1808, 121e through 150e were transient regiments formed in the 1794 levy, but none were still in existence a little over a year later, they were budded off, in effect, from old Royal Regiments, and were reamalgamated back into them. So were the new regiments (102-104, 111-118) and indeed some of the old Royal Regiments. After the collapse of the levy they collapsed a lot of these newer budded off regiments back into their parent regiment.

    Finally 151e through 156e were formed from the National Guard during the crises of 1813.

    The 13e and 14e Legere were formed from National Guard units in 1791. The 15e through 30e Legere were newly raised in 73-5 by the Levy, and were kept. 31e through 35e Legere were raised from conquered territories during the Imperial period, 36e Legere was a partially trained new Ligne Regiment converted during the crisis of 1812, and 37e Legere was the scrappings from the depots thrown together in 1813.

    14e-25e Chasseurs a Cheval were formed from volunteer units, and most of them had a rather short life, 26e-28e were taken into French service from conquered territorials, 29e and 31e were formed from provisional regiments (formed from the depots) and 30e were converted to Lanciers while forming.

    The 13e Currassiers were another provisional unit, while the 14e were taken from the Dutch Army.

    19e and 20e Dragons were formed from volunteers, 21e were converted from a police unit, 28e were split from the 2/7e Hussards (a volunteer unit), 29e and 30e were conversions of the 11e and 12e Hussards.

    9e and 10e Hussards were volunteers, 11e - 13e were formed by detachments from other royal regiments ca 94 (and 12e absorbed much of the Dutch light horse), the 14e was a short live 1811 Italian unit.

    1er - 6e and 93 Lancier regiments were conversions from Dragoons, 7e and 8e were Polish.
    Last edited by 67th Tigers; April 05, 2008 at 02:13 PM.

  8. #188
    Centurion-Lucius-Vorenus's Avatar Protector Domesticus
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    In a cottage cheese cottage in Levittown, New york
    Posts
    4,219

    Default Re: Robert E. Lee vs The Duke of Wellington

    Quote Originally Posted by 67th Tigers View Post
    The reports back to Paris (written by Napoleon) simply talk of Napoleon entering Berlin.
    You fail to answer the question. How is Davout marching his corps through Berlin is not an honor ?

    Quote Originally Posted by 67th Tigers View Post
    He didn't share any glory. That Davout had the leading Corps is inconsequential,
    How ?

    Quote Originally Posted by 67th Tigers View Post
    Napoleon took all the glory for himself, as he had done on many occasions. It was his modus operandi to claim glory, even when it wasn't due (such as Marengo, Napoleon lost the battle, and then Desaix won it back) and blame others for his mistakes.
    First of all, Desaix went to Marengo at Bonaparte's orders and second of all, what of Wellington ? Wellington did the exact same thing and worse during his time.


    Quote Originally Posted by 67th Tigers View Post
    No, I know the difference,
    No you do because i have told you.


    Quote Originally Posted by 67th Tigers View Post
    but you conflated the campaigns casualties with those sustained on the field of Ulm, and you're now try to dig out of the mistake.

    How is including the Casualties in a particular battle in the overall casualties in the campaign in which that battle took place in a mistake ?

    Quote Originally Posted by 67th Tigers View Post
    No, that's not a manoeuvre sur les derrieres at all. It is, as previously described, a feint flanking movement to force a weakening of the line, then a frontal strike at a weak point.


    What you're describing is a mix of a turning movement and a coup de main, two separate movements.
    And the landings at Omaha were guys on beaches running at guys in bunkers.

    And way to pompously correct a typo.


    Quote Originally Posted by 67th Tigers View Post
    So little understanding! Do you even know where Halle is?
    And so ? What does this have to do with the fact that Waterloo was something like 4 miles wide ?

    Quote Originally Posted by 67th Tigers View Post
    and so your argument becomes circular....
    How ?

    I will be plain.

    Quote Originally Posted by 67th Tigers View Post
    The 1er through 101e and 105e through 110e Ligne were old Royal Regiments, and despite absorbing new recruits remained true to this heritage, and did the 1er through 12e Legere, 1er and 2eme Carabiniers, 1er through 13e Chasseurs a Cheval, 1er through 12e Cuirassiers, 1er through 18e and 22e through 27e Dragons, and 1er through 8e Hussards. All these regiments retained their identity for the entire duration (although several light horse regiments were converted to Lanciers, they took their traditions with them).

    102e through 104e and 111e through 118e Ligne were new regiments, 119e and 120e Ligne were skipped and not formed until 1808, 121e through 150e were transient regiments formed in the 1794 levy, but none were still in existence a little over a year later, they were budded off, in effect, from old Royal Regiments, and were reamalgamated back into them. So were the new regiments (102-104, 111-118) and indeed some of the old Royal Regiments. After the collapse of the levy they collapsed a lot of these newer budded off regiments back into their parent regiment.

    Finally 151e through 156e were formed from the National Guard during the crises of 1813.

    The 13e and 14e Legere were formed from National Guard units in 1791. The 15e through 30e Legere were newly raised in 73-5 by the Levy, and were kept. 31e through 35e Legere were raised from conquered territories during the Imperial period, 36e Legere was a partially trained new Ligne Regiment converted during the crisis of 1812, and 37e Legere was the scrappings from the depots thrown together in 1813.

    14e-25e Chasseurs a Cheval were formed from volunteer units, and most of them had a rather short life, 26e-28e were taken into French service from conquered territorials, 29e and 31e were formed from provisional regiments (formed from the depots) and 30e were converted to Lanciers while forming.

    The 13e Currassiers were another provisional unit, while the 14e were taken from the Dutch Army.

    19e and 20e Dragons were formed from volunteers, 21e were converted from a police unit, 28e were split from the 2/7e Hussards (a volunteer unit), 29e and 30e were conversions of the 11e and 12e Hussards.

    9e and 10e Hussards were volunteers, 11e - 13e were formed by detachments from other royal regiments ca 94 (and 12e absorbed much of the Dutch light horse), the 14e was a short live 1811 Italian unit.

    1er - 6e and 93 Lancier regiments were conversions from Dragoons, 7e and 8e were Polish.
    Are you just going to Ignore the fact that the Regiment organization was disbanded by the revolutionary government ?

  9. #189

    Default Re: Robert E. Lee vs The Duke of Wellington

    Quote Originally Posted by Centurion-Lucius-Vorenus View Post
    You fail to answer the question. How is Davout marching his corps through Berlin is not an honor ?

    How ?
    It was simply a matter of march order, not any particular honour.

    First of all, Desaix went to Marengo at Bonaparte's orders and second of all, what of Wellington ? Wellington did the exact same thing and worse during his time.
    Desaix arrived at Marengo on his own initiative (Napoleon had managed to split his command in the face of the enemy, then failed to send any comms to the detached wing, but again, Napoleon had completely misread the operational situation) and, finding Napoleon incapable of doing anything, acted on his own initiative. He was killed in the process allowing Napoleon to write his own version of events unchallenged.

    And so ? What does this have to do with the fact that Waterloo was something like 4 miles wide ?
    A quick look at a map would show you to be wrong. Both armies were on a frontage of slightly over a mile, the allies have a refused right of 4 brigades which was never threatened, and the French threw a lot of their reserves into creating a refused right as well.

    Perhaps if you took the frontages of all the allied armies brigades it might add up to 4 miles, but they weren't arrayed in a single battleline.

    Are you just going to Ignore the fact that the Regiment organization was disbanded by the revolutionary government ?
    See, ignoring data to support your position.

  10. #190
    Centurion-Lucius-Vorenus's Avatar Protector Domesticus
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    In a cottage cheese cottage in Levittown, New york
    Posts
    4,219

    Default Re: Robert E. Lee vs The Duke of Wellington

    Quote Originally Posted by 67th Tigers View Post
    It was simply a matter of march order, not any particular honour.
    No it was not, Berlin was undefended, to be the first to march and parade triumphantly through the enemies capital is an honor.

    Quote Originally Posted by 67th Tigers View Post
    Desaix arrived at Marengo on his own initiative
    Wrong, as of eleven Bonaparte sent to Desaix with "I had thought to attack Melas. He has attacked me first. For god's sake come up if you still can."

    Quote Originally Posted by 67th Tigers View Post
    (Napoleon had managed to split his command in the face of the enemy, then failed to send any comms to the detached wing, but again, Napoleon had completely misread the operational situation)
    There is no doubt that the situation was Misread, And the young First consul too assure of his own reputation had Underestimated Melas. While this is true, while the Battle was being fought, Napoleon conducted himself well in buying time for Desaix to come up. Also there is no doubt that the Rest of the campaign was handled Brilliantly.


    Quote Originally Posted by 67th Tigers View Post
    and, finding Napoleon incapable of doing anything, acted on his own initiative.
    See above.


    Quote Originally Posted by 67th Tigers View Post
    He was killed in the process allowing Napoleon to write his own version of events unchallenged.
    Consequently he wrote to his fellow Consuls the next day of the Sacrifice of Desaix and how critical his support was.

    And I'm still waiting as for your response to Wellington grabbing glory undeserved, dumping all the Blame on the Prince of Orange, Neglecting to recognize the monumental and crucial aid by Blucher and his Prussians and by Hyping it up as a grand British victory despite the fact that the Vast Majority of men that were to Fight the French on that day were not British.



    Quote Originally Posted by 67th Tigers View Post
    A quick look at a map would show you to be wrong. Both armies were on a frontage of slightly over a mile, the allies have a refused right of 4 brigades which was never threatened, and the French threw a lot of their reserves into creating a refused right as well.

    Perhaps if you took the frontages of all the allied armies brigades it might add up to 4 miles, but they weren't arrayed in a single battleline.

    3 Square miles in total yes ? Well i was only off by one mile. Second of all, Your only adding evidence to the Fact that the Manouevre sur le derrieres could not be pulled off (You claimed for whatever reason that it was) Due to how small it was.

    Quote Originally Posted by 67th Tigers View Post
    See, ignoring data to support your position.
    Posting random Information about Random Regiments during the Time of the Grande Armee (Lancers were never used by the French in the revolution, And French lancer regiments were never created until 1810-1811) does not prove that the Royal army was still active.

    Heres what we know. We know that a mass of volunteers were called up during the early days of the Revolution. We know that the French leadership wanted to wipe out the Royal traditions from the army. We know that the Dem-Brigade system was created partly to due away with the regiment organization because it was seen as a vestige of the Royal system. We know that The Demi-Brigades were generally comprised of two volunteer Battalions and 1 Regular one. We also know that because of the Shortage of Regulars meant that 15 demi-brigades were composed entirely of Volunteers. With this in mind, it's clear that the old Royal army was on the out in numbers by 1794, it would also make your claim that the old army was an independent Force until as late as '96, completely false.

  11. #191

    Default Re: Robert E. Lee vs The Duke of Wellington

    Quote Originally Posted by Centurion-Lucius-Vorenus View Post
    No it was not, Berlin was undefended, to be the first to march and parade triumphantly through the enemies capital is an honor.
    Reading Davout's correspondence, it's clear Berlin was not undefended, one of his Cavalry Regiments (1er Chas d Ch) had chanced upon an unburnt bridge guarded by Saxons who immediately surrendered. His light horse, in their Green Jackets seem to have been mistaken for Russians and been ignored by the defences. Thus it seems to have been happenstance, it happened to be 3eme Corps that broke through.

    Wrong, as of eleven Bonaparte sent to Desaix with "I had thought to attack Melas. He has attacked me first. For god's sake come up if you still can."
    Whether he did or not, that message never reached Desaix, who marched on his own accord.

    Also there is no doubt that the Rest of the campaign was handled Brilliantly.
    .... by Desaix.

    And I'm still waiting as for your response to Wellington grabbing glory undeserved, dumping all the Blame on the Prince of Orange, Neglecting to recognize the monumental and crucial aid by Blucher and his Prussians and by Hyping it up as a grand British victory despite the fact that the Vast Majority of men that were to Fight the French on that day were not British.
    Sorry, did you ever make that point? If so, I wonder what you were trying to gain from it.

    3 Square miles in total yes ? Well i was only off by one mile. Second of all, Your only adding evidence to the Fact that the Manouevre sur le derrieres could not be pulled off (You claimed for whatever reason that it was) Due to how small it was.
    His intention was to carry out such a movement, and d'Erlon was the battering ram. Of course, Wellington didn't react to thin his lines, his right flank was extremely strong and he sat there. Thus Napoleon's battering ram hit a strong position, rather than a weak one.

    Posting random Information about Random Regiments during the Time of the Grande Armee (Lancers were never used by the French in the revolution, And French lancer regiments were never created until 1810-1811) does not prove that the Royal army was still active.
    Well, as said, all (bar the 7e and 8e Lanciers) were old Royal Dragon regiments converted.

    Heres what we know. We know that a mass of volunteers were called up during the early days of the Revolution. We know that the French leadership wanted to wipe out the Royal traditions from the army. We know that the Dem-Brigade system was created partly to due away with the regiment organization because it was seen as a vestige of the Royal system. We know that The Demi-Brigades were generally comprised of two volunteer Battalions and 1 Regular one. We also know that because of the Shortage of Regulars meant that 15 demi-brigades were composed entirely of Volunteers. With this in mind, it's clear that the old Royal army was on the out in numbers by 1794, it would also make your claim that the old army was an independent Force until as late as '96, completely false.
    No, it's unfortunately true. The Royal Army regiments battalions were reassigned under the initial demi-brigade system at one per new demi-brigade. As the levy and volunteers disappeared, the regiments were reformed by putting the old royal battalions back together again.

    What we effectively ended up with was:

    xxxe Ligne (insert royal name as subtitle)
    1er Bn: old royal battalion
    2e Bn: old royal battalion
    3eme Bn: levy

    Some mixing up saw the old levy lineages dropped and the bulk of the infantry bearing old royal names.

  12. #192
    Centurion-Lucius-Vorenus's Avatar Protector Domesticus
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    In a cottage cheese cottage in Levittown, New york
    Posts
    4,219

    Default Re: Robert E. Lee vs The Duke of Wellington

    Quote Originally Posted by 67th Tigers View Post
    Reading Davout's correspondence, it's clear Berlin was not undefended, one of his Cavalry Regiments (1er Chas d Ch) had chanced upon an unburnt bridge guarded by Saxons who immediately surrendered. His light horse, in their Green Jackets seem to have been mistaken for Russians and been ignored by the defences. Thus it seems to have been happenstance, it happened to be 3eme Corps that broke through.
    A few Saxons who offered no resistance is not what i would call a defense.

    Quote Originally Posted by 67th Tigers View Post
    Whether he did or not, that message never reached Desaix, who marched on his own accord.
    A) It did in fact reach Desaix at One P.M. and at Once Desaix marched to the Aid of Bonaparte.

    Quote Originally Posted by 67th Tigers View Post
    .... by Desaix.
    Are you actually going to try to claim that the Campaign of 1800 was Organized and led by Desaix ?


    Quote Originally Posted by 67th Tigers View Post
    Sorry, did you ever make that point?
    Read and find out.

    Quote Originally Posted by 67th Tigers View Post
    If so, I wonder what you were trying to gain from it.
    Nothing. I just find it odd that you accuse Napoleon of Glory grabbing while you Regard Wellington as a better man then him, whoc was quite the hog when it came to glory.

    Quote Originally Posted by 67th Tigers View Post
    His intention was to carry out such a movement, and d'Erlon was the battering ram. Of course, Wellington didn't react to thin his lines, his right flank was extremely strong and he sat there. Thus Napoleon's battering ram hit a strong position, rather than a weak one.
    It was never his attempt for Napoleon to attempt it, he knew that the ground could not accomodate it because it was A) too small and B) too muddy

    Quote Originally Posted by 67th Tigers View Post
    Well, as said, all (bar the 7e and 8e Lanciers) were old Royal Dragon regiments converted.
    They were not Old Royal dragoon regiments they were Dragoon regiments of the French empire. Are you going to insist that the royal army was somehow still around at 1810 ?

    Quote Originally Posted by 67th Tigers View Post
    No, it's unfortunately true. The Royal Army regiments battalions were reassigned under the initial demi-brigade system at one per new demi-brigade. As the levy and volunteers disappeared, the regiments were reformed by putting the old royal battalions back together again.

    What we effectively ended up with was:

    xxxe Ligne (insert royal name as subtitle)
    1er Bn: old royal battalion
    2e Bn: old royal battalion
    3eme Bn: levy

    Some mixing up saw the old levy lineages dropped and the bulk of the infantry bearing old royal names.
    Really ? I Find it odd how they managed to do this considering the Regular units were decreasing in number every year while the Volunteer units were being called up hundreds of thousands at the time.

  13. #193

    Default Re: Robert E. Lee vs The Duke of Wellington

    Quote Originally Posted by Centurion-Lucius-Vorenus View Post
    A few Saxons who offered no resistance is not what i would call a defense.
    Any idea what a bridge demolition guard is?

    A) It did in fact reach Desaix at One P.M. and at Once Desaix marched to the Aid of Bonaparte.
    Not what prettymuch every book on the subject says. I know Napoleon, jealous of Desaix, later claimed Desaix was following his lead, but it just wasn't the case.

    Nothing. I just find it odd that you accuse Napoleon of Glory grabbing while you Regard Wellington as a better man then him, whoc was quite the hog when it came to glory.
    For very different reasons though. Humble Generals are a rarity, but Napoleon was an extreme egotist. It was this ego that drove him to Emperor. Post Waterloo he continued to protest that Wellington was a bad general and that the 'match was rigged'.

    It was never his attempt for Napoleon to attempt it, he knew that the ground could not accomodate it because it was A) too small and B) too muddy
    Well, Wellington, looking at the ground, thought it was possible, as did the senior British commanders, as did the senior French commanders. As for why he didn't, well, that would just cause another argument.

    They were not Old Royal dragoon regiments they were Dragoon regiments of the French empire. Are you going to insist that the royal army was somehow still around at 1810 ?
    Still around now, quite a bit of it. For example, 13e RDP has an unbroken service to France 1676

    Really ? I Find it odd how they managed to do this considering the Regular units were decreasing in number every year while the Volunteer units were being called up hundreds of thousands at the time.
    [/quote]

    No, units are more than the sum of the men currently serving in them. No military service?

  14. #194
    Centurion-Lucius-Vorenus's Avatar Protector Domesticus
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    In a cottage cheese cottage in Levittown, New york
    Posts
    4,219

    Default Re: Robert E. Lee vs The Duke of Wellington

    Quote Originally Posted by 67th Tigers View Post
    Any idea what a bridge demolition guard is?
    Ever hear of a Pontoon ?

    Quote Originally Posted by 67th Tigers View Post
    Not what prettymuch every book on the subject says. I know Napoleon, jealous of Desaix, later claimed Desaix was following his lead, but it just wasn't the case.
    Which ones specifically ? There are some that Say that Desaix received the order, and some that say that Desaix was moving towards the sounds of the guns when the letter reached him. Neither case would be evidence that Napoleon did nothing and sat there, which was your original argument.


    Quote Originally Posted by 67th Tigers View Post
    For very different reasons though.
    Sounds like BS to me. Care to elaborate ?


    Quote Originally Posted by 67th Tigers View Post
    Humble Generals are a rarity, but Napoleon was an extreme egotist. It was this ego that drove him to Emperor. Post Waterloo he continued to protest that Wellington was a bad general and that the 'match was rigged'.
    Compared to Him, Wellington was a bad general. Wellington only won Waterloo because the Odd's were in his favor with Napoleon having to face two Armies against his one , Wellington would of never given battle if it wasn't for Blucher .

    Napoleon ranks among the finest Generals in the world, and he is known and esteemed and every country. You'll find that When you compare Wellington to Napoleon that Wellington gets a fraction of the praise that Napoleon does, and it calls from Anglophone countries (Mostly Britain), and you can tell why.



    Well, Wellington, looking at the ground, thought it was possible, as did the senior British commanders, as did the senior French commanders. As for why he didn't, well, that would just cause another argument.



    Quote Originally Posted by 67th Tigers View Post
    Still around now, quite a bit of it. For example, 13e RDP has an unbroken service to France 1676
    And again, your going to Use one regiment as evidence that the Royal army retained its services ? I could just as well cite the 13th Foriegn legion Demi-Brigade and say that the demi-brigade system is still in use.


    Quote Originally Posted by 67th Tigers View Post
    No, units are more than the sum of the men currently serving in them.
    Actually, thats almost the definition for a military unit, as well as the term Unit in general.


    Quote Originally Posted by 67th Tigers View Post
    No military service?
    What ? You need to learn to express yourself more clearly.

  15. #195

    Default Re: Robert E. Lee vs The Duke of Wellington

    Quote Originally Posted by Centurion-Lucius-Vorenus View Post
    Compared to Him, Wellington was a bad general. Wellington only won Waterloo because the Odd's were in his favor with Napoleon having to face two Armies against his one , Wellington would of never given battle if it wasn't for Blucher .
    Biased much? Pretty unfair comment to make given that Wellington was victorious in 15 straight battles during the Peninsula War. Wellingtons plan from the start was to hold out for Blucher, he succeeded and the Anglo-Allied Armies won as a consequence. Wellington did pretty well to hold together an army made up of several different nationalities including turn coats whoes loyalty was still fairly questionable.

  16. #196
    Centurion-Lucius-Vorenus's Avatar Protector Domesticus
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    In a cottage cheese cottage in Levittown, New york
    Posts
    4,219

    Default Re: Robert E. Lee vs The Duke of Wellington

    Quote Originally Posted by Buff View Post
    Biased much? Pretty unfair comment to make given that Wellington was victorious in 15 straight battles during the Peninsula War.
    That war was won mostly due to the activities of the French Guerillas, who kept Hundreds of Thousands of Frenchmen occupied. Wellington Never Faced a French army who were even remotely close to triple figures until he was near the Pyrennes.

    And None of those Victories, were Against Napoleon mind you.

    Quote Originally Posted by Buff View Post
    Wellingtons plan from the start was to hold out for Blucher,
    And he later tried to make it out like Blucher did nothing. Secondly, his conduct before Waterloo is in no ways admirable by his own admission.

    Quote Originally Posted by Buff View Post
    he succeeded and the Anglo-Allied Armies won as a consequence.
    It was not the Anglo-allies, if where going to give any name to the Armies that fought Napoleon in the Hundred days under then just the allies, it would be the Prusso-Allies, As they constituted the largest part of the force.


    Quote Originally Posted by Buff View Post
    Wellington did pretty well to hold together an army made up of several different nationalities including turn coats whoes loyalty was still fairly questionable.
    Babble. Not only is it completely Un-true that the Allies under Wellington were somehow Bonapartists, but the idea that they were somehow 'Un-loyal' is anglo-centric mis history. No Ally, owed fealty or alliance to Britain. They acted of their own accord in the war, they acted in their own interest and rightfully so.

    (And since I missed this)


    Quote Originally Posted by Tigers
    Well, Wellington, looking at the ground, thought it was possible, as did the senior British commanders, as did the senior French commanders. As for why he didn't, well, that would just cause another argument.
    Which ones ?

  17. #197

    Default Re: Robert E. Lee vs The Duke of Wellington

    Quote Originally Posted by Centurion-Lucius-Vorenus View Post
    That war was won mostly due to the activities of the French Guerillas, who kept Hundreds of Thousands of Frenchmen occupied. Wellington Never Faced a French army who were even remotely close to triple figures until he was near the Pyrennes.
    Utter rubbish. The Guerrillas were generally weak, and had little impact on French Army operations. They were dispersed as they were facing at least 7 allied armies.

    Of course, the French Army of the Peninsula is the elite of the French Army. Napoleon left his Grande Armee in Spain, under his best generals, and built a new one.

    And None of those Victories, were Against Napoleon mind you.
    Except the one that was.

    And he later tried to make it out like Blucher did nothing. Secondly, his conduct before Waterloo is in no ways admirable by his own admission.
    Blucher did very little. Gneisenau did a hell of a lot, moving heaven and earth to get that Prussian Corps onto the field.

    It was not the Anglo-allies, if where going to give any name to the Armies that fought Napoleon in the Hundred days under then just the allies, it would be the Prusso-Allies, As they constituted the largest part of the force.
    They were in English pay....

    Babble. Not only is it completely Un-true that the Allies under Wellington were somehow Bonapartists, but the idea that they were somehow 'Un-loyal' is anglo-centric mis history. No Ally, owed fealty or alliance to Britain. They acted of their own accord in the war, they acted in their own interest and rightfully so.
    Funny, the questionable loyalty of some of the Belgians and Dutch is well known.....

  18. #198
    Centurion-Lucius-Vorenus's Avatar Protector Domesticus
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    In a cottage cheese cottage in Levittown, New york
    Posts
    4,219

    Default Re: Robert E. Lee vs The Duke of Wellington

    Quote Originally Posted by 67th Tigers View Post
    Utter rubbish. The Guerrillas were generally weak, and had little impact on French Army operations. They were dispersed as they were facing at least 7 allied armies.
    Really ? I wonder why it took up the vast majority of the French army in Spain then.

    Quote Originally Posted by 67th Tigers View Post
    Of course, the French Army of the Peninsula is the elite of the French Army. Napoleon left his Grande Armee in Spain, under his best generals, and built a new one.
    Prove it. Davout was Never in Spain without Napoleon there, Neither was Lannes (Though his time was cut short)

    Quote Originally Posted by 67th Tigers View Post
    Except the one that was.
    And that was in spain ?


    Quote Originally Posted by 67th Tigers View Post
    Blucher did very little. Gneisenau did a hell of a lot, moving heaven and earth to get that Prussian Corps onto the field.
    Prove it. Source it.

    Quote Originally Posted by 67th Tigers View Post
    They were in English pay....
    The Dutch-Beglians were in English Pay ?

    Just the English as well ? I mean hell, its not like Scotland, wales or Ireland really matter i guess.

    Quote Originally Posted by 67th Tigers View Post
    Funny, the questionable loyalty of some of the Belgians and Dutch is well known.....
    Yeah, Like when Chasse Went forward when the Allied line was cracking only to defect to the french.....Oh wait.

  19. #199
    Erebus Pasha's Avatar vezir-i âzam
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Leicestershire, UK
    Posts
    9,335

    Default Re: Robert E. Lee vs The Duke of Wellington

    Quote Originally Posted by Centurion-Lucius-Vorenus View Post
    Really ? I wonder why it took up the vast majority of the French army in Spain then.
    Did the guerillas beat the French Army in the field or drive them out of Spain?


    Quote Originally Posted by Centurion-Lucius-Vorenus View Post
    Prove it. Davout was Never in Spain without Napoleon there, Neither was Lannes (Though his time was cut short)
    Soult was and so was Massena. They weren't exactly bad Marshals were they?


    Quote Originally Posted by Centurion-Lucius-Vorenus View Post
    And that was in spain ?
    Napoleon never met Wellington in Spain.



    Quote Originally Posted by Centurion-Lucius-Vorenus View Post
    Prove it. Source it.
    Wikipedia will do for a start:

    In 1815, once more chief of Blücher's staff, Gneisenau played a very conspicuous part in the Waterloo campaign. Senior generals such as Yorck and Kleist had been set aside in order that the chief-of-staff should take command in case of need, and when on the field of Ligny the old field marshal was disabled, Gneisenau assumed command of the Prussian army. He rallied the army, directed it towards Wavre from where part of it marched to join Wellington at the Battle of Waterloo on 18 June1815, where the flanking attack by the Prussians decided the battle.
    On the field of Waterloo, Gneisenau carried out a pursuit that resulted in the capture of Napoleon's carriage. In the days following the battle, Gneisenau saw that the Prussian forces reached Paris before Wellington. In reward Gneisenau gained further promotion and the insignia of the Black Eagle.



    Quote Originally Posted by Centurion-Lucius-Vorenus View Post
    Just the English as well ? I mean hell, its not like Scotland, wales or Ireland really matter i guess.
    I don't know about pay but Wellington was commander-in-chief of the Dutch-Belgian Forces.



    Quote Originally Posted by Centurion-Lucius-Vorenus View Post
    Yeah, Like when Chasse Went forward when the Allied line was cracking only to defect to the french.....Oh wait.
    The Dutch and the Belgians had fought under Bonaparte until 1814 so of course there are going to be questions over loyalty. Thankfully they performed well at Waterloo.

    www.ottomanhistorypodcast.com/
    Under the patronage of the Noble Savage.

  20. #200

    Default Re: Robert E. Lee vs The Duke of Wellington

    Quote Originally Posted by Centurion-Lucius-Vorenus View Post
    Really ? I wonder why it took up the vast majority of the French army in Spain then.

    Prove it. Davout was Never in Spain without Napoleon there, Neither was Lannes (Though his time was cut short)

    And that was in spain ?

    Prove it. Source it.
    Again with the juvenile comments. The French Army in Spain was confronting 7 (or at times 9) field armies in different regions. Esdaile has demolished the theory that the Guerrillas played as major role. I suggest you read him.

    Oh, and the point was his best Marshals, not C-L-V's favourite Marshals.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •