Thought this was a good article about the battle and it's importance.
http://time.com/3924075/battle-of-waterloo-importance/
Waterloo is a great victory but it is not as decisive as portrayed by the English press and propaganda which his accepted by some history books.
The real blow to Napoleon was the losses in Spain and Russia followed by the coup de grace in Leipzig.
Even if Napoleon wins Waterloo, the Russian army was fast approaching and they alone would have outnumbered and outgunned the French.
The Austrians and Swedes were also mobilising big armies.
The decisve allied victories were - Trafalgar, Spain, Russia and Leipzig.
The real blow to Napoleon was the losses in Spain and Russia followed by the coup de grace in Leipzig.
Even if Napoleon wins Waterloo, the Russian army was fast approaching and they alone would have outnumbered and outgunned the French.
The Austrians and Swedes were also mobilising big armies.
The decisve allied victories were - Trafalgar, Spain, Russia and Leipzig.
Rascals, would you live forever? - Frederick the Great.
-
Field Marshal Hotzendorf
- Captain
- Posts: 167
- Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2015 8:24 pm
Thanks Hotzendorff.
My basis is the negotiations for the 7th coalition.
Each of the big 4 promised 150000 troops, england later changed it to 75000 troops and 200000 troops subsidies.
Russian troops alone numbered 0.5 million inc. Cossacks. Of which 125000 army under Barclay and a reserve army of 75000 for guarding. Conquered terrain and providing recruits was sent towards France.
France could mobilised only 300000 total of which some 50-60000 were in guard mode against royalist coups etc.
That left nappy with slightly less than 200000 troops giving allowances for various garrisons and strong points.
Wellington army was the only army the Brits could mobilise but Prussia had another army of 75000 stationed in Berlin which was on the way.
Austria also put nearly 200000 troops in Alsace, Italians had put another 50-60000.
Swedes were marching 30000.
All in all .....GAME over.
My basis is the negotiations for the 7th coalition.
Each of the big 4 promised 150000 troops, england later changed it to 75000 troops and 200000 troops subsidies.
Russian troops alone numbered 0.5 million inc. Cossacks. Of which 125000 army under Barclay and a reserve army of 75000 for guarding. Conquered terrain and providing recruits was sent towards France.
France could mobilised only 300000 total of which some 50-60000 were in guard mode against royalist coups etc.
That left nappy with slightly less than 200000 troops giving allowances for various garrisons and strong points.
Wellington army was the only army the Brits could mobilise but Prussia had another army of 75000 stationed in Berlin which was on the way.
Austria also put nearly 200000 troops in Alsace, Italians had put another 50-60000.
Swedes were marching 30000.
All in all .....GAME over.
Rascals, would you live forever? - Frederick the Great.
"Que dites-vous ?… C’est inutile ?… Je le sais !
Mais on ne se bat pas dans l’espoir du succès !
Non ! non, c’est bien plus beau lorsque c’est inutile !"
This is part of the legend of Waterloo, it was useless, it was a grandiose and suicidal rise from the ashes of that grand revolutionary and imperial France that had changed Europe for ever in those 25 years... It was useless, it wasn't going to change anything yet one last time those blue coats, those white trousers, those tall bearskin hats, those gold strewn marshalls and generals and that now a bit portly and slower footed (and witted) emeperor marched to the heart of Europe, as if it could all begin again.
Waterloo is that moment when the contemporary, the historians, the artists, the writers, realise that they have a last chance to watch was is already history.
Waterloo is not a part of Napoleon's campaigns as a general, consul and emperor, it is his posthumous album, as it happens you already know he and his times are gone.
Mais on ne se bat pas dans l’espoir du succès !
Non ! non, c’est bien plus beau lorsque c’est inutile !"
This is part of the legend of Waterloo, it was useless, it was a grandiose and suicidal rise from the ashes of that grand revolutionary and imperial France that had changed Europe for ever in those 25 years... It was useless, it wasn't going to change anything yet one last time those blue coats, those white trousers, those tall bearskin hats, those gold strewn marshalls and generals and that now a bit portly and slower footed (and witted) emeperor marched to the heart of Europe, as if it could all begin again.
Waterloo is that moment when the contemporary, the historians, the artists, the writers, realise that they have a last chance to watch was is already history.
Waterloo is not a part of Napoleon's campaigns as a general, consul and emperor, it is his posthumous album, as it happens you already know he and his times are gone.
-
Field Marshal Hotzendorf
- Captain
- Posts: 167
- Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2015 8:24 pm
Shri wrote:Waterloo is a great victory but it is not as decisive as portrayed by the English press and propaganda which his accepted by some history books.
The real blow to Napoleon was the losses in Spain and Russia followed by the coup de grace in Leipzig.
Even if Napoleon wins Waterloo, the Russian army was fast approaching and they alone would have outnumbered and outgunned the French.
The Austrians and Swedes were also mobilising big armies.
The decisve allied victories were - Trafalgar, Spain, Russia and Leipzig.
With respect, I don't understand this new version of the end of Napoleon's wars. By definition, there was only one battle as closely decisive as Waterloo during the period, and that was Austerlitz. No other battle, not even Jena/Auerstadt, brought such a cataclysmic end to one of the participants. Of course there were many contributing factors to the end of the Napoleonic Wars, but to deny the decisive nature of a battle which utterly destroyed one army and left France unable to fight should require more evidence than the current line of 'Napoleon would have eventually lost anyway.'
We don't put a suffix to Austerlitz, that it was only decisive because of Ulm, and it didn't really settle anything, so why is it so fashionable to do so now with Waterloo?
As for what would have happened had he won, I think Napoleon has demonstrated a remarkable ability to correctly read the political will of nations and intervene with perfect timing. Is it possible that the inevitability of his defeat which hindsight seems to have convinced modern historians may be incorrect and that perhaps Napoleon knew how great his chances for success were? Do we dismiss everything Napoleon did and trust the opinion of historians?
Napoleon's bet was had the Prussians been destroyed in Belgium, the Austrians would have either been eliminated or made peace. The Russian army would not have been on the Danube in time to save them. The Swedes were a minor contingent in 1813, and would be no greater in 1815 or 1816. Both Prussia and Austria were at the end of their desire to see their countries turned into battlefields and their armies destroyed in return for British gold, one major victory over each of them and the coalition would have collapsed. Perhaps Napoleon was wrong, but based on his history, I would wager he had a far greater grasp on the situation than anyone writing about it in the next 200 years.
Probably another topic, but IMHO, Trafalgar is the most overrated battle in the English speaking world. It settled nothing other than British morale and the enlargement of a number of estates through prize money. Had Nelson lost every ship, another larger British fleet was waiting for the Franco/Spaniards in the Channel. Even if there were no fleet at all, the next invasion opportunity was Spring 1806, by which time France was busy with Prussia.
Shri wrote:Waterloo is a great victory but it is not as decisive as portrayed by the English press and propaganda which his accepted by some history books.
The real blow to Napoleon was the losses in Spain and Russia followed by the coup de grace in Leipzig.
Even if Napoleon wins Waterloo, the Russian army was fast approaching and they alone would have outnumbered and outgunned the French.
The Austrians and Swedes were also mobilising big armies.
The decisve allied victories were - Trafalgar, Spain, Russia and Leipzig.
Now as a true Brit Shri I just have to take issue with you.
I'd be the first to admit that Waterloo was not a British victory.....it was a victory of the Allies and owed as much to the Prussian , Netherlands presence as it did to British forces. As to the rest though......the Russians, Austrians, Swedes etc. What they would have done or might have done had Waterloo not occurred is pure speculation. Fact is that due to Waterloo they were never needed and who cares whether they would have stood or run.........just my humble opinion you understand
dinsdale wrote:With respect, I don't understand this new version of the end of Napoleon's wars. By definition, there was only one battle as closely decisive as Waterloo during the period, and that was Austerlitz. No other battle, not even Jena/Auerstadt, brought such a cataclysmic end to one of the participants. Of course there were many contributing factors to the end of the Napoleonic Wars, but to deny the decisive nature of a battle which utterly destroyed one army and left France unable to fight should require more evidence than the current line of 'Napoleon would have eventually lost anyway.'
We don't put a suffix to Austerlitz, that it was only decisive because of Ulm, and it didn't really settle anything, so why is it so fashionable to do so now with Waterloo?
As for what would have happened had he won, I think Napoleon has demonstrated a remarkable ability to correctly read the political will of nations and intervene with perfect timing. Is it possible that the inevitability of his defeat which hindsight seems to have convinced modern historians may be incorrect and that perhaps Napoleon knew how great his chances for success were? Do we dismiss everything Napoleon did and trust the opinion of historians?
Napoleon's bet was had the Prussians been destroyed in Belgium, the Austrians would have either been eliminated or made peace. The Russian army would not have been on the Danube in time to save them. The Swedes were a minor contingent in 1813, and would be no greater in 1815 or 1816. Both Prussia and Austria were at the end of their desire to see their countries turned into battlefields and their armies destroyed in return for British gold, one major victory over each of them and the coalition would have collapsed. Perhaps Napoleon was wrong, but based on his history, I would wager he had a far greater grasp on the situation than anyone writing about it in the next 200 years.
Probably another topic, but IMHO, Trafalgar is the most overrated battle in the English speaking world. It settled nothing other than British morale and the enlargement of a number of estates through prize money. Had Nelson lost every ship, another larger British fleet was waiting for the Franco/Spaniards in the Channel. Even if there were no fleet at all, the next invasion opportunity was Spring 1806, by which time France was busy with Prussia.
Well I suppose it all comes down to what a "decisive battle" is. If we think of it in clausewitzian terms as the battle that decides everything, settles the campaign and means the end of the war with a victor and a loser, well for the Napoleonic period the decisive battles were Austerlitz and Waterloo for sure. The status of a battle like Friedland is more murky. all other battles like all the peninsular battles and even Leipzig don't fit the model, as the war dragged on even if such or such battle dramatically altered the balance of forces. Wagram doesn't fit it either as the Austrian army was still a fighting force. So yes in that sense I agree with Dinsdale.
What I suppose Shri meant is that in the grand scheme of things Waterloo isn't a "structural" battle. It didn't mean a massive change of balance in Europe, a realignement of forces, a change of paradigm. From a structural point of view the two bookends of the Napoleonic continental domination are Austerlitz and Leipzig : Austerlitz opens it and 8 years later Leipzig closes it. These are the bookends. One could argue that the source of Napoleon's defeat are in Spain and Russia, but even the Russian campaign although catastrophic in terms of losses didn't mean the crumbling of Napoleon's empire. Had Bautzen and Lützen been a bit more conclusive, the Austrians might have sat on their hands and a new balance might have been found. Or not, who knows.
The whole point is that Waterloo is more of a symbol then the actual decisive battle it is depicted to be. To take a bad analogy, Waterloo is the Battle of the Bulge, not Stalingrad.
@dinsdale, soundoff and others-
1. Why Trafalgar is important? It demonstrated the absolute supremacy of the Royal Navy as had been the case for over 200 years in the past and will be for more than 100 years in the future, it also put a stop to all speculation of an invasion of the British Isles for over 100 years.
In one word- Absolutely Decisive.
2. Ulm and Austerlitz are part of the same winter campaign of 1805-
Why decisive? it destroyed the 3rd coalition.
The Best campaign of Napoleon by far. Best Tactical victories.
Absolutely Decisive.
3. Jena - Auerstadt.
It destroyed Prussia. Prussia under Frederick the Great just 50 years ago had decisively defeated the combined armies of France, Russia and Austria and now was truncated post Jena-Auerstadt.
The Treaty of Tilsit destroyed 55% land, 45% population and 60% wealth of Prussia and it was the most harsh treaty ever imposed on the European continent, far worse than Versailles or post WW2. The treaty of TILSIT destroyed the Empire of Prussia and only part of Royal Prussia as a colony remained.
Post Tilsit, France was numero Uno on the Continent, Russia was a clear Second, England was clear numero Uno on the seas and Austria became an also-ran!.
The Greatest Strategic victory of Napoleon.
In fact, Napoleon went to Frederick's tomb and posted a guard of honour, had some 'vandals' punished, made his marshals remove their caps and bow and said-
Were this man alive, we wouldn't be standing here.
Again Absolutely Decisive.
As to Waterloo-
Yes i know the English armies had a lot of Irish troops, plenty of Scots, were led by 2 Anglo-Irish commanders, had a strong Dutch Contingent and 2 Hanover-Brunswick corps, besides the smaller Prussian army under Blucher was supporting it.
But there was a larger Prussian army about 1.5 times bigger than Blucher army and much better armed which was marching from Berlin and Saxony.
Besides, the Tsar had his own armies charging in.
Strategic Situation in 1815-
Russian armies were at their peak by 1813-1815, French were at their lowest. The Russians are always slow in a campaign, but once they get into their groove they are a STEAMROLLER, Russia alone could have taken on Austria, England, Prussia and France and conquered all of Europe and all of the allies were aware of this fact. If the Russians had captured Nappy, he would have been blown off a cannon!, that is why he surrendered to the English!.
Some background-
Just before Nappy's 100 day kids adventure began (Nappy was well past his prime, the whole campaign was useless in my opinion).
In late 1814, the 4 majors sat down for a discussion to carve the World-
England wanted World Empire and Naval Dominance- All Agreed.
Austria wanted Status Quo- none Agreed.
Prussia wanted to gobble Saxony and smaller German states - a la Bismarck, but only Russia agreed.
Russia wanted to gobble Poland (it has swallowed and spit out Poland for the last 500 years) - Prussia agreed.
Lord Londonderry of England against the English Cabinet's opinion, tried to trick Austria's Prince Metternich into bribing Prussia to join their side, Talleyrand of France was also a party to this devious trick, (a repeat of Edward Grey's trick just before WW1), somehow the Tsar's spies came to know (another version is - Koenig Wilhelm III made one of his Military Advisers- Count York or Gneisenau leak it), the Tsar immediately challenged Londonderry and Metternich to a duel!
He also declared in open session-
The King of Prussia will get Saxony and i will get whatever i want, i have 450000 troops in Poland and another 500000 in Moscow, he who dares oppose say so!.
This scared the living daylights of the Austrian Crown, Emperor Francis I was forced to intercede with the Tsar and sort out the matter.
In all this confusion, in came Napoleon and solved the fight of the 4 powers!.
Russia wouldn't have given up the fight on Napoleon whatever the cost, similarly Prussia.
So, defeat or victory at Waterloo is immaterial.
Even if Napoleon had mobilised Belgian French troops post Waterloo and added another 50000, sheer numbers of the Tsar's armies mattered and mind you the Tsar's armies were the best troops in Europe in 1815, had most amount of cannon and were lavishly equipped and supplied.
Going further, If you read about the Russian armies, you will see clearly that GRAND BATTERY concept isn't Napoleon's invention, it was used by Count Suvorov and the Russians again and again since the 1790s, the problem was till 1809, the Russian gunpowder was of inferior quality and in very less quantity, when the British subsidies reached them, gunpowder factories were set up which solved the problems of the artillery and infantry (infantry gunpowder was terrible, that is why Russian soldiers always used bayonets pre 1809 not guns).
By the time of 1812, Russian army had some 25% more guns than Napoleon's Grand Army, still they had ammo shortages and so they weren't used that effectively. Russian Artillery men even fought hand-to-hand melee to save the Tsar's cannon, as losing it meant death or Siberia!.
The French officers were amazed to see that their own artillery abandoned guns but Russians never abandoned, they preferred to take the guns with them in retreat or die trying.
In Napoleon, the French had discovered a new type of morale, but this was always there in the persona of the Tsar since the times of Peter the Great, the Tsar was a kind of God for the Russian Muzik(peasant) and the Tsar's rifle and cannon were worth more than 'life'.
1. Why Trafalgar is important? It demonstrated the absolute supremacy of the Royal Navy as had been the case for over 200 years in the past and will be for more than 100 years in the future, it also put a stop to all speculation of an invasion of the British Isles for over 100 years.
In one word- Absolutely Decisive.
2. Ulm and Austerlitz are part of the same winter campaign of 1805-
Why decisive? it destroyed the 3rd coalition.
The Best campaign of Napoleon by far. Best Tactical victories.
Absolutely Decisive.
3. Jena - Auerstadt.
It destroyed Prussia. Prussia under Frederick the Great just 50 years ago had decisively defeated the combined armies of France, Russia and Austria and now was truncated post Jena-Auerstadt.
The Treaty of Tilsit destroyed 55% land, 45% population and 60% wealth of Prussia and it was the most harsh treaty ever imposed on the European continent, far worse than Versailles or post WW2. The treaty of TILSIT destroyed the Empire of Prussia and only part of Royal Prussia as a colony remained.
Post Tilsit, France was numero Uno on the Continent, Russia was a clear Second, England was clear numero Uno on the seas and Austria became an also-ran!.
The Greatest Strategic victory of Napoleon.
In fact, Napoleon went to Frederick's tomb and posted a guard of honour, had some 'vandals' punished, made his marshals remove their caps and bow and said-
Were this man alive, we wouldn't be standing here.
Again Absolutely Decisive.
As to Waterloo-
Yes i know the English armies had a lot of Irish troops, plenty of Scots, were led by 2 Anglo-Irish commanders, had a strong Dutch Contingent and 2 Hanover-Brunswick corps, besides the smaller Prussian army under Blucher was supporting it.
But there was a larger Prussian army about 1.5 times bigger than Blucher army and much better armed which was marching from Berlin and Saxony.
Besides, the Tsar had his own armies charging in.
Strategic Situation in 1815-
Russian armies were at their peak by 1813-1815, French were at their lowest. The Russians are always slow in a campaign, but once they get into their groove they are a STEAMROLLER, Russia alone could have taken on Austria, England, Prussia and France and conquered all of Europe and all of the allies were aware of this fact. If the Russians had captured Nappy, he would have been blown off a cannon!, that is why he surrendered to the English!.
Some background-
Just before Nappy's 100 day kids adventure began (Nappy was well past his prime, the whole campaign was useless in my opinion).
In late 1814, the 4 majors sat down for a discussion to carve the World-
England wanted World Empire and Naval Dominance- All Agreed.
Austria wanted Status Quo- none Agreed.
Prussia wanted to gobble Saxony and smaller German states - a la Bismarck, but only Russia agreed.
Russia wanted to gobble Poland (it has swallowed and spit out Poland for the last 500 years) - Prussia agreed.
Lord Londonderry of England against the English Cabinet's opinion, tried to trick Austria's Prince Metternich into bribing Prussia to join their side, Talleyrand of France was also a party to this devious trick, (a repeat of Edward Grey's trick just before WW1), somehow the Tsar's spies came to know (another version is - Koenig Wilhelm III made one of his Military Advisers- Count York or Gneisenau leak it), the Tsar immediately challenged Londonderry and Metternich to a duel!
He also declared in open session-
The King of Prussia will get Saxony and i will get whatever i want, i have 450000 troops in Poland and another 500000 in Moscow, he who dares oppose say so!.
This scared the living daylights of the Austrian Crown, Emperor Francis I was forced to intercede with the Tsar and sort out the matter.
In all this confusion, in came Napoleon and solved the fight of the 4 powers!.
Russia wouldn't have given up the fight on Napoleon whatever the cost, similarly Prussia.
So, defeat or victory at Waterloo is immaterial.
Even if Napoleon had mobilised Belgian French troops post Waterloo and added another 50000, sheer numbers of the Tsar's armies mattered and mind you the Tsar's armies were the best troops in Europe in 1815, had most amount of cannon and were lavishly equipped and supplied.
Going further, If you read about the Russian armies, you will see clearly that GRAND BATTERY concept isn't Napoleon's invention, it was used by Count Suvorov and the Russians again and again since the 1790s, the problem was till 1809, the Russian gunpowder was of inferior quality and in very less quantity, when the British subsidies reached them, gunpowder factories were set up which solved the problems of the artillery and infantry (infantry gunpowder was terrible, that is why Russian soldiers always used bayonets pre 1809 not guns).
By the time of 1812, Russian army had some 25% more guns than Napoleon's Grand Army, still they had ammo shortages and so they weren't used that effectively. Russian Artillery men even fought hand-to-hand melee to save the Tsar's cannon, as losing it meant death or Siberia!.
The French officers were amazed to see that their own artillery abandoned guns but Russians never abandoned, they preferred to take the guns with them in retreat or die trying.
In Napoleon, the French had discovered a new type of morale, but this was always there in the persona of the Tsar since the times of Peter the Great, the Tsar was a kind of God for the Russian Muzik(peasant) and the Tsar's rifle and cannon were worth more than 'life'.
Rascals, would you live forever? - Frederick the Great.
continuing my pedantry,
Russia should start with highly experienced artillery, guards and cavalry, decent infantry, but 0 ammo wagons and 0 hospitals.
Their AMMO was atrocious in 1805-1809 period. didn't explode half the time.
Every year they should get 1 AMMO, 1 HOSPITAL and 1 SUPPLY wagon in MOSCOW by event but be unable to produce any of those (Russian logistics and medical care was appalling and that is the reason their armies didn't perform as well as they ought to have).
Further, English armies should be able to regain only half the reinforcements gained by others (they had a sea to cross), this means English armies must start highly experienced and get excellent recruits but replenishment being slow, their advance should be very very slow.
England should have a lavish logistics train and excellent medics, engineers etc.
French 1805 army should start 2* exp and guards at 3* but replacements should be 1.25 times faster than others but too many replacements will erode the experience and destroy effectiveness. French generals, at least a few should have "Forager" or "Logistic wizard" ability.
France shouldn't have a great logistic train, but rely on "logistic wizard generals", but they should have good engineers and medics.
Russia should start with highly experienced artillery, guards and cavalry, decent infantry, but 0 ammo wagons and 0 hospitals.
Their AMMO was atrocious in 1805-1809 period. didn't explode half the time.
Every year they should get 1 AMMO, 1 HOSPITAL and 1 SUPPLY wagon in MOSCOW by event but be unable to produce any of those (Russian logistics and medical care was appalling and that is the reason their armies didn't perform as well as they ought to have).
Further, English armies should be able to regain only half the reinforcements gained by others (they had a sea to cross), this means English armies must start highly experienced and get excellent recruits but replenishment being slow, their advance should be very very slow.
England should have a lavish logistics train and excellent medics, engineers etc.
French 1805 army should start 2* exp and guards at 3* but replacements should be 1.25 times faster than others but too many replacements will erode the experience and destroy effectiveness. French generals, at least a few should have "Forager" or "Logistic wizard" ability.
France shouldn't have a great logistic train, but rely on "logistic wizard generals", but they should have good engineers and medics.
Rascals, would you live forever? - Frederick the Great.
Shri wrote:continuing my pedantry,
Russia should start with highly experienced artillery, guards and cavalry, decent infantry, but 0 ammo wagons and 0 hospitals.
Their AMMO was atrocious in 1805-1809 period. didn't explode half the time.
Every year they should get 1 AMMO, 1 HOSPITAL and 1 SUPPLY wagon in MOSCOW by event but be unable to produce any of those (Russian logistics and medical care was appalling and that is the reason their armies didn't perform as well as they ought to have).
Further, English armies should be able to regain only half the reinforcements gained by others (they had a sea to cross), this means English armies must start highly experienced and get excellent recruits but replenishment being slow, their advance should be very very slow.
England should have a lavish logistics train and excellent medics, engineers etc.
French 1805 army should start 2* exp and guards at 3* but replacements should be 1.25 times faster than others but too many replacements will erode the experience and destroy effectiveness. French generals, at least a few should have "Forager" or "Logistic wizard" ability.
France shouldn't have a great logistic train, but rely on "logistic wizard generals", but they should have good engineers and medics.
sorry but disagree :
- Re Russia : depriving them of supply wagons makes them virtually unplayable for a player and catastrophic from an AI point of view. Doing this makes no sense. The simpler way to do it is to give bad offensive and defensive fire capabilities to the Russian infantry early on that becomes better when it upgrades to "late" infantry later in the game. Your suggestions are too easily gameable and would break the game.
- Re the English : fair enough, something of the kind is the usual way to deal with their "elite" set up : very good, great fire stats but low replacement and not so fast movement rate (not old plodding prussian, but not fast).
- Re the French : The experience suggestion is quite good, but your suggestions regarding the leaders are bad, because leaders had nothing to do with this foraging ability, it was part of the organisational set up of each batallon to have to forage for food during a campaign, something that had been learnt during the revolutionnary wars when the logistical train was quasi non-existent. So the foraging trait is a "troop" trait, not a leader trait. It was the NCOs that were in charge of procuring the food for the soldiers locally, the general or Marechal had zilch to do with it. so the forager trait should be troop based, not general based. How precisely you do it I don't know because this only worked when troops where fanned out, ergo the independent corps : if you had 100 000 soldiers on the same piece of road it couldn't work, and you had to resort to trains (see the Russian campaign) and the french troops became as slow as the others. So the forager trait of the french troops should be linked to some sort of "trafic rule" where if there are too many troops in a province, they start eating up their supplies. This is one of the reasons for the late concentration of napoleonic troops : If they concentrated too early they were going to eat up their supplies and needed a big and strong supply base (see Vienna in 1809) and a structured logistical train. But if they were fanned out and concentrated the day before the battle, then basically what the batallon level carriages had in terms of alcohol + what the soldiers had in their backpack in terms of food was enough.
I guess you agree about the English.
Regarding the Russians- said AMMO not SUPPLY Wagons and MEDICS.
If no MEDICS, then cohesion is lesser and recovery is lower and slower also the accruals from combat i.e. wounded healing is lesser.
If no AMMO trucks, Artillery is disadvantaged not infantry. After 2 rounds usually Russia would resort to cavalry charges and bayonet assaults,
why? one reason suggested was Suvorov the master Russian commander in the 1780s-90s whose advise if it had been followed, Napoleon wouldn't have come to power itself!.
But that aside, it was due to the fact that Russian artillery ran out of ammo and musket ammo was so useless after 2 rounds that bayonet was preferred. The russians usually had 20-25% more men in every infantry division as compared to other countries, this helped them in bayonet charges as the first line usually died in enemy fire.
For French- i don't know how you can give divisions forager ability!
That is why the compromise was commanders.
Regarding the Russians- said AMMO not SUPPLY Wagons and MEDICS.
If no MEDICS, then cohesion is lesser and recovery is lower and slower also the accruals from combat i.e. wounded healing is lesser.
If no AMMO trucks, Artillery is disadvantaged not infantry. After 2 rounds usually Russia would resort to cavalry charges and bayonet assaults,
why? one reason suggested was Suvorov the master Russian commander in the 1780s-90s whose advise if it had been followed, Napoleon wouldn't have come to power itself!.
But that aside, it was due to the fact that Russian artillery ran out of ammo and musket ammo was so useless after 2 rounds that bayonet was preferred. The russians usually had 20-25% more men in every infantry division as compared to other countries, this helped them in bayonet charges as the first line usually died in enemy fire.
For French- i don't know how you can give divisions forager ability!
That is why the compromise was commanders.
Rascals, would you live forever? - Frederick the Great.
Shri wrote:I guess you agree about the English.
Regarding the Russians- said AMMO not SUPPLY Wagons and MEDICS.
If no MEDICS, then cohesion is lesser and recovery is lower and slower also the accruals from combat i.e. wounded healing is lesser.
If no AMMO trucks, Artillery is disadvantaged not infantry. After 2 rounds usually Russia would resort to cavalry charges and bayonet assaults,
why? one reason suggested was Suvorov the master Russian commander in the 1780s-90s whose advise if it had been followed, Napoleon wouldn't have come to power itself!.
But that aside, it was due to the fact that Russian artillery ran out of ammo and musket ammo was so useless after 2 rounds that bayonet was preferred. The russians usually had 20-25% more men in every infantry division as compared to other countries, this helped them in bayonet charges as the first line usually died in enemy fire.
For French- i don't know how you can give divisions forager ability!
That is why the compromise was commanders.
You don't give divisions the aibility you give it to some individual elements and it can apply to the whole stack or the whole unit (division / brigade). For example you could imagine that french light infantry and light cavalry have this trait and in most cases that would mean the french stack has this ability.
Regarding the russians ammo and supply wagons are likely to be the same unit anyway. My point is that you can just tweak the unit stats (artillery and infantry fire stats) to show the bad powder quality and or limited amount of supply, rather than start modifying the structure of gameplay by depriving the Russians of ammo wagons.
Shri wrote:France shouldn't have a great logistic train, but rely on "logistic wizard generals", but they should have good engineers and medics.
I have just finished reading an article on the French Grand Army : it seems the idea the French were "living off the country" is not completely true.
Napoleon was giving importance to the war logistic (there was a dedicated ministry), chains of depots were organized in friendly/allied territories and/or allies were supporting French troops in their country (ok, we know it's difficult to ensure hundreds of thousands of men are not taking some liberties...).
It's only in ennemy territories that requisition was allowed. Moreover at its peak, the supply train was, theoritecally, made of 24 bataillons of 4 companies equiped with 34 wagons (i.e. a total of 3264 wagons).
Shri wrote:@dinsdale, soundoff and others-
Besides, the Tsar had his own armies charging in.
Strategic Situation in 1815-
Russian armies were at their peak by 1813-1815, French were at their lowest. The Russians are always slow in a campaign, but once they get into their groove they are a STEAMROLLER, Russia alone could have taken on Austria, England, Prussia and France and conquered all of Europe and all of the allies were aware of this fact. If the Russians had captured Nappy, he would have been blown off a cannon!, that is why he surrendered to the English!.
Some background-
Just before Nappy's 100 day kids adventure began (Nappy was well past his prime, the whole campaign was useless in my opinion).
In late 1814, the 4 majors sat down for a discussion to carve the World-
England wanted World Empire and Naval Dominance- All Agreed.
Austria wanted Status Quo- none Agreed.
Prussia wanted to gobble Saxony and smaller German states - a la Bismarck, but only Russia agreed.
Russia wanted to gobble Poland (it has swallowed and spit out Poland for the last 500 years) - Prussia agreed.
Lord Londonderry of England against the English Cabinet's opinion, tried to trick Austria's Prince Metternich into bribing Prussia to join their side, Talleyrand of France was also a party to this devious trick, (a repeat of Edward Grey's trick just before WW1), somehow the Tsar's spies came to know (another version is - Koenig Wilhelm III made one of his Military Advisers- Count York or Gneisenau leak it), the Tsar immediately challenged Londonderry and Metternich to a duel!
He also declared in open session-
The King of Prussia will get Saxony and i will get whatever i want, i have 450000 troops in Poland and another 500000 in Moscow, he who dares oppose say so!.
This scared the living daylights of the Austrian Crown, Emperor Francis I was forced to intercede with the Tsar and sort out the matter.
In all this confusion, in came Napoleon and solved the fight of the 4 powers!.
Russia wouldn't have given up the fight on Napoleon whatever the cost, similarly Prussia.
So, defeat or victory at Waterloo is immaterial.
Even if Napoleon had mobilised Belgian French troops post Waterloo and added another 50000, sheer numbers of the Tsar's armies mattered and mind you the Tsar's armies were the best troops in Europe in 1815, had most amount of cannon and were lavishly equipped and supplied.
Going further, If you read about the Russian armies, you will see clearly that GRAND BATTERY concept isn't Napoleon's invention, it was used by Count Suvorov and the Russians again and again since the 1790s, the problem was till 1809, the Russian gunpowder was of inferior quality and in very less quantity, when the British subsidies reached them, gunpowder factories were set up which solved the problems of the artillery and infantry (infantry gunpowder was terrible, that is why Russian soldiers always used bayonets pre 1809 not guns).
By the time of 1812, Russian army had some 25% more guns than Napoleon's Grand Army, still they had ammo shortages and so they weren't used that effectively. Russian Artillery men even fought hand-to-hand melee to save the Tsar's cannon, as losing it meant death or Siberia!.
The French officers were amazed to see that their own artillery abandoned guns but Russians never abandoned, they preferred to take the guns with them in retreat or die trying.
In Napoleon, the French had discovered a new type of morale, but this was always there in the persona of the Tsar since the times of Peter the Great, the Tsar was a kind of God for the Russian Muzik(peasant) and the Tsar's rifle and cannon were worth more than 'life'.
Some of this is accurate. It is not clear what Alexander the Tsar would have done. At this point he was meeting with his mystic from 6 in the evening until 2 in the morning. He did not get what he wanted in Poland, only part. Prussia only got part of Saxony. And when Alexander proposed that he become the leader of the armies to defeat Napoleon upon his return, Alexander was denied. He also ensured that Napoleon's wife receive the Duchy of Parma....it was the Prussians who would have executed Napoleon. Alexander wasn't that happy with his allies, and was even growing tired of his formerly close ties with Prussia. Then Napoleon made public the secret agreement among Britain, France and Austria. Did he really want to fight for these allies especially now that he had seen the "light"?
Prior to the end of the American war of 1812 for the British, Alexander was acting the bully with his stubborn behavior at the Congress of Vienna. When that war ended and Britain had a more free hand, Alexander softened up on his demands though he was still very bitter. If Napoleon had won then Alexander may have said "forget it." He did not care at all for the Bourbons anyway.
Britain wanted the Netherlands to control all the lowland, including Belgium, the infamous pistol pointed at their head. They wanted freedom of the seas. They wanted no one particular power to dominate the continent and so at the Congress of Vienna they were most worried about Russia and wanted a strong France, ironically, and a stronger Prussia. However, because Talleyrand siezed the rhetorical highground as the champion of lesser states and the rule of law...putting Alexander in a bad light...Britain could not publically abide the division of Poland and take over of Saxony.
Austria did not want to return to the Holy Roman Empire. They did not want Belgium back for instance. They did want major influence in a German Confederation. They wanted northern Italy back and Dalmatia and Istria in the Balkans. They did not want Prussia to have Saxony or Russia to have Poland...both would provide easy invasion access into Austria and be a loss of prestige and industry. They retained what they wanted in Poland, against the Tsar's wishes, and were able to maintain and independent Saxony (Prussia only got the upper 1/3).
Prussia, as you correctly wrote, was devastated after their defeat. They wanted Napoleon's head on a platter, the Alsace Lorraine, Saxony, Westphalia, and more influence in the German Confederation. They would have wanted France broken up into it's ancient kingdoms. They got little of what they wanted but they got what they needed in the Rhineland though they did not realize at the time (later they discover lots of coal and iron there...whoops.) At the Congress of Vienna they sucked up to the Tsar because they figured he could give them what they wanted....he couldn't. Their defeat at the hands of Napoleon was the best thing that happened to them however...they instituted major civil, economic, legal and military reforms as a result which paid dividends later.
Russia wanted Poland (what's new?), a free hand against Turkey, more influence in the Balkans with the slavs, Finland (which they conquered opportunistically while every one else was fighting Napoleon) and lots of Prestige....he wanted to be the leader of a new concert of Europe....he was disappointed in that. The Russians had the largest but not nearly the best army in Europe.
An aside....the French did have the best generals. It was not just "the system" though the system and Napoleon's insight for organization were vital. (It is like saying Joe Montana was only great because of the 49ers system). Look at it this way: (Except the Prussians after 1807 and maybe the Austrians a little leading up to 1809) the allies had a small demographic pool for officers and leaders - the nobility. Moreover the nobles were a group that was not known for embracing new ideas. On the other hand, Massena was what? A fishmonger's son? Or something like that. France, which had an extremely large relative population anyway, had a large demographic pool in an environment where merit and talent counted and a "hey let's push this button and see what it does" was the norm. So yeah, they were better.
Mickey3D wrote:I have just finished reading an article on the French Grand Army : it seems the idea the French were "living off the country" is not completely true.
Napoleon was giving importance to the war logistic (there was a dedicated ministry), chains of depots were organized in friendly/allied territories and/or allies were supporting French troops in their country (ok, we know it's difficult to ensure hundreds of thousands of men are not taking some liberties...).
It's only in ennemy territories that requisition was allowed. Moreover at its peak, the supply train was, theoritecally, made of 24 bataillons of 4 companies equiped with 34 wagons (i.e. a total of 3264 wagons).
The french did have a good train, the point was that they used it differently, instead of having a few armies plodding forward with their train and creating the chain of depots as they went along, which meant slow progress on congested roads, they fanned out in coprs (15000/20000 men) and those corps lived mainly off the country during the march to the main objective while an other part of the army progressing towards that objective established a chain of depots so that when the corps had to concentrate they would have enough supply to be able to.
Another aspect was that counting on the speed of his corps Napoleon calculated that they could seize ennemy depots and get supply from there, without depending on their own depots. in the Austerlitz and Iena campaigns it worked like a charm : the french depot chain was a back up that didn't really have to be used because the corps got all they needed from the austrian and prussian logistics. What made the Eylau and Friedland campaign a lot slower was that once in the Vistula plains the land was a lot poorer (+ weather) and the french really had to function based on their supply train which meant they couldn't lunge forward and led to a few near misses (Pultusk and Golymin).
Basically for the "living off the country" to work the area had to be rich enough to support the troops. One could imagine the game using "development levels" like in CW2 to emulate this : a 20 000 men corps with the stack getting the "living off the land" trait from some of its elements, on a province of development 75 would be able to sustain itself, but on a province of development 50 he would start losing supplies fast. That way one could imagine a game where middle and south germany, italy, Austria, main areas of France, etc are of a high development level, allowing for this set up to work (an therefore allowing the french to move fast) whereas in Poland, Spain, and of course even worse in Russia, the lower development level would absolutely require wagons lest the troops starve and start deserting en masse.
@Drake001
i didn't want to write a 30 page article and so i wrote that summary.
And yes, i know Prussia didn't get all of Saxony or Russia didn't conquer all of Poland; but these are compromises not positions.
What you write of the Russian affinity for the French is pre 1812, post invasion, Russia was decidedly anti-French and pro-Prussian and remained so for the next 70 odd years. The Russians won over the French invaders because they were better fighters and better led, had better logistics, more cannon and a willingness to take losses that even shocked Bloody Boney. The TSAR wouldn't have let him go alive if his Cossacks had caught him. Imprisonment or Death awaited for sure.
The "ICE" won the battles is French propaganda just like German propaganda of a century later in 1940s.
Many of the Russian victories were never studied, all battles between Borodino and Berezina are ignored by French writers - in all of them French lost and lost badly, 2:1 losses or more even though it was the Russians who attacked. Most of these are being studied/written now in the 20th-21st centuries.
Russia wanted to conquer all they could in the intervals- look at the FATE of Finns and Turks.
Prussia wanted compensation for the immense losses due to TILSIT, they had lost nearly half their country to Russia (impossible to get back) and Austria (no Frederick alive to trounce the Austrians) and so wanted an end to the WESTPHALIA STATES. i.e. gobble them up.
Britain of course, didn't want land on the continent and so felt no-one should have land on the continent. The main reason it didn't want continental land was it is difficult to defend, whereas the island was easily defended by the Royal Navy.
Adm Jervis is reported to have stated to Pitt at the start of the wars- The French may come, but i assure you they will never come by sea.
Brave words and true words. This word was kept from 1792 to 1815 and beyond.
Traditional British foreign policy is to form a coalition of the weak and surround the strong. A popular saying in Europe post 1807 was- England would fight till the last drop of Austrian, Prussian and Russian blood.
The Austrians didn't want Netherlands as it was anyway Spanish Hapsberg ruled and not Austrian Hapsberg ruled lands. With the Spanish cousins dead, the Austrians didn't want direct borders with the BBB (France - BIG BLUE BLOB). Instead they wanted good buffer states just like Russia, with puppet rulers reporting to the Emperor.
Finally to French Generals,
NAPPY from 1800 till about 1807 or even 1809 was the pre-eminent General in Europe but his presence made the mediocre French Generals look good.
If you really analyse them - Only Massena and Davout could handle independent actions without constant guidance from Nappy.
Ney, Grouchy, Murat, St. Cyr, etc etc all were shown UP when they fought alone without Nappy's protection.
P.S.: In 1798, at the start of the 2nd coalition, Prince Suvorov put forth a proposal, 100000 Russians + 100000 Austrian Empire Soldiers guarded by 20000 Cossacks doing a straight march to Paris bypassing all the nonsense, bayoneting all the Revolutionary leaders and installing a Bourbon in Paris.
He asked for this and 3 months time. War Over. If the then Tsar (Paul the idiot) had agreed, the Napoleonic Wars would have been over before they started.
Suvorov's bold and rapid marches, constant offensives, grand battery formations, foraging for food, intense drilling, bayonet attacks, thirst for battle and reading enemy general's minds were all lessons learnt and applied well by Napoleonic France ironically and not Russia.
i didn't want to write a 30 page article and so i wrote that summary.
And yes, i know Prussia didn't get all of Saxony or Russia didn't conquer all of Poland; but these are compromises not positions.
What you write of the Russian affinity for the French is pre 1812, post invasion, Russia was decidedly anti-French and pro-Prussian and remained so for the next 70 odd years. The Russians won over the French invaders because they were better fighters and better led, had better logistics, more cannon and a willingness to take losses that even shocked Bloody Boney. The TSAR wouldn't have let him go alive if his Cossacks had caught him. Imprisonment or Death awaited for sure.
The "ICE" won the battles is French propaganda just like German propaganda of a century later in 1940s.
Many of the Russian victories were never studied, all battles between Borodino and Berezina are ignored by French writers - in all of them French lost and lost badly, 2:1 losses or more even though it was the Russians who attacked. Most of these are being studied/written now in the 20th-21st centuries.
Russia wanted to conquer all they could in the intervals- look at the FATE of Finns and Turks.
Prussia wanted compensation for the immense losses due to TILSIT, they had lost nearly half their country to Russia (impossible to get back) and Austria (no Frederick alive to trounce the Austrians) and so wanted an end to the WESTPHALIA STATES. i.e. gobble them up.
Britain of course, didn't want land on the continent and so felt no-one should have land on the continent. The main reason it didn't want continental land was it is difficult to defend, whereas the island was easily defended by the Royal Navy.
Adm Jervis is reported to have stated to Pitt at the start of the wars- The French may come, but i assure you they will never come by sea.
Brave words and true words. This word was kept from 1792 to 1815 and beyond.
Traditional British foreign policy is to form a coalition of the weak and surround the strong. A popular saying in Europe post 1807 was- England would fight till the last drop of Austrian, Prussian and Russian blood.
The Austrians didn't want Netherlands as it was anyway Spanish Hapsberg ruled and not Austrian Hapsberg ruled lands. With the Spanish cousins dead, the Austrians didn't want direct borders with the BBB (France - BIG BLUE BLOB). Instead they wanted good buffer states just like Russia, with puppet rulers reporting to the Emperor.
Finally to French Generals,
NAPPY from 1800 till about 1807 or even 1809 was the pre-eminent General in Europe but his presence made the mediocre French Generals look good.
If you really analyse them - Only Massena and Davout could handle independent actions without constant guidance from Nappy.
Ney, Grouchy, Murat, St. Cyr, etc etc all were shown UP when they fought alone without Nappy's protection.
P.S.: In 1798, at the start of the 2nd coalition, Prince Suvorov put forth a proposal, 100000 Russians + 100000 Austrian Empire Soldiers guarded by 20000 Cossacks doing a straight march to Paris bypassing all the nonsense, bayoneting all the Revolutionary leaders and installing a Bourbon in Paris.
He asked for this and 3 months time. War Over. If the then Tsar (Paul the idiot) had agreed, the Napoleonic Wars would have been over before they started.
Suvorov's bold and rapid marches, constant offensives, grand battery formations, foraging for food, intense drilling, bayonet attacks, thirst for battle and reading enemy general's minds were all lessons learnt and applied well by Napoleonic France ironically and not Russia.
Rascals, would you live forever? - Frederick the Great.
Shri wrote:P.S.: In 1798, at the start of the 2nd coalition, Prince Suvorov put forth a proposal, 100000 Russians + 100000 Austrian Empire Soldiers guarded by 20000 Cossacks doing a straight march to Paris bypassing all the nonsense, bayoneting all the Revolutionary leaders and installing a Bourbon in Paris.
He asked for this and 3 months time. War Over. If the then Tsar (Paul the idiot) had agreed, the Napoleonic Wars would have been over before they started.
Suvorov's bold and rapid marches, constant offensives, grand battery formations, foraging for food, intense drilling, bayonet attacks, thirst for battle and reading enemy general's minds were all lessons learnt and applied well by Napoleonic France ironically and not Russia.
utter nonsense... Suvorov was an interesting general for sure, but his scenario was absurd and wouldn't have worked and the idea that Napoleonic armies applied lessons learnt from Suvorov and not from 10 years of revolutionary wars is gibberish.
I don't want to sound pedantic, but you really like definitive statements. You know the period well, fair enough, but things tend to be more complicated than what they seem to be at first sight.
Regarding the french generals being mediocre, that is really pushing the enveloppe. The point wasn't that they weren't good, rather that they weren't quite as good as pictured because they benefited from the comparison with very bad and obsolete officier corps in the austrian, prussian or russian armies AND that they also benefited from their troops' ability to execute on the battlefield, to march fast and long on the campaign trail (thanks partly to the living of the land aspect + the fanning of corps allowing maximum use of the road system without clogging).
But in 1805-1807 most of the generals are very good at seeing opportunities and seizing them. Ney and Bernadotte lacked initiative so would have average strategic ratings say 3-4-1 for Ney (+ reckless) and 3-2-2 for Bernadotte, Soult was always very dependable if not creative or great (something like 4-2-2), a guy like Davout would get 5-4-4 while a guy like Lannes something like 4-4-2 (and reckless trait), these are just guesses/hunches.
The main problem for the marshalls should be that most of them had a hard time commanding in autonomy, so once the lead an army, their limited strategic sense (so the strategic rating) started showing. Basically give Ney or Marmont an army command and they become very average, would tend to be fairly enough inactive in game, etc..
A bit like in AACW and CW2, in a game the point isn't that the french generals are super, rather that you have lots of them being average to good to begin with, whereas the allies start with many poor ones and only few good ones. Progressively the allies get more quality leaders whereas for the french the new ones tend to be limited : for a Suchet you get many Grouchys, Vandamnes, Oudinots which where out of their depth once they commanded bigger forces.
What you write of the Russian affinity for the French is pre 1812, post invasion, Russia was decidedly anti-French and pro-Prussian and remained so for the next 70 odd years. The Russians won over the French invaders because they were better fighters and better led, had better logistics, more cannon and a willingness to take losses that even shocked Bloody Boney. The TSAR wouldn't have let him go alive if his Cossacks had caught him. Imprisonment or Death awaited for sure.
The "ICE" won the battles is French propaganda just like German propaganda of a century later in 1940s.
Many of the Russian victories were never studied, all battles between Borodino and Berezina are ignored by French writers - in all of them French lost and lost badly, 2:1 losses or more even though it was the Russians who attacked. Most of these are being studied/written now in the 20th-21st centuries.
Russia wanted to conquer all they could in the intervals- look at the FATE of Finns and Turks.
Prussia wanted compensation for the immense losses due to TILSIT, they had lost nearly half their country to Russia (impossible to get back) and Austria (no Frederick alive to trounce the Austrians) and so wanted an end to the WESTPHALIA STATES. i.e. gobble them up.
Britain of course, didn't want land on the continent and so felt no-one should have land on the continent. The main reason it didn't want continental land was it is difficult to defend, whereas the island was easily defended by the Royal Navy.
Adm Jervis is reported to have stated to Pitt at the start of the wars- The French may come, but i assure you they will never come by sea.
Brave words and true words. This word was kept from 1792 to 1815 and beyond.
Traditional British foreign policy is to form a coalition of the weak and surround the strong. A popular saying in Europe post 1807 was- England would fight till the last drop of Austrian, Prussian and Russian blood.
The Austrians didn't want Netherlands as it was anyway Spanish Hapsberg ruled and not Austrian Hapsberg ruled lands. With the Spanish cousins dead, the Austrians didn't want direct borders with the BBB (France - BIG BLUE BLOB). Instead they wanted good buffer states just like Russia, with puppet rulers reporting to the Emperor.
What I wrote about what the Allies desired comes from direct sources. There is a very good (and entertaining) book "Vienna 1814. You should read it. Also, Alexander's ambiguity and disenchantment with his allies as well as Prussia is well documented (and his complete dissatisfaction with the Bourbons).
One thing that needs to be in this game is the differing goals of the allies that often put them at cross-purposes. Prussia gains points for Saxony and Austria loses points if Prussia gets Saxony. That kind of thing.
As far as your statements about Russian soldiers and army vs the French....whoo. Your "cossack" is showing. All I can say is scoreboard.
I don't really disagree with the sentiments above by veji1. I would include Massena for awhile and maybe up a couple others a bit but, yeah, one of the reasons they shined was because their competition - austrian, russian and prussian - sucked. I think Ney and Marmont were slightly above average and maybe Macdonald...but again if they are deemed average then their competition would need to be below average and you'd have a pretty static game heh. And that can partly be attributed to the demographic point as well as the Napoleonic system.
veji1 wrote:utter nonsense... Suvorov was an interesting general for sure, but his scenario was absurd and wouldn't have worked and the idea that Napoleonic armies applied lessons learnt from Suvorov and not from 10 years of revolutionary wars is gibberish.
I don't want to sound pedantic, but you really like definitive statements. You know the period well, fair enough, but things tend to be more complicated than what they seem to be at first sight.
Regarding the french generals being mediocre, that is really pushing the enveloppe. The point wasn't that they weren't good, rather that they weren't quite as good as pictured because they benefited from the comparison with very bad and obsolete officier corps in the austrian, prussian or russian armies AND that they also benefited from their troops' ability to execute on the battlefield, to march fast and long on the campaign trail (thanks partly to the living of the land aspect + the fanning of corps allowing maximum use of the road system without clogging).
But in 1805-1807 most of the generals are very good at seeing opportunities and seizing them. Ney and Bernadotte lacked initiative so would have average strategic ratings say 3-4-1 for Ney (+ reckless) and 3-2-2 for Bernadotte, Soult was always very dependable if not creative or great (something like 4-2-2), a guy like Davout would get 5-4-4 while a guy like Lannes something like 4-4-2 (and reckless trait), these are just guesses/hunches.
The main problem for the marshalls should be that most of them had a hard time commanding in autonomy, so once the lead an army, their limited strategic sense (so the strategic rating) started showing. Basically give Ney or Marmont an army command and they become very average, would tend to be fairly enough inactive in game, etc..
A bit like in AACW and CW2, in a game the point isn't that the french generals are super, rather that you have lots of them being average to good to begin with, whereas the allies start with many poor ones and only few good ones. Progressively the allies get more quality leaders whereas for the french the new ones tend to be limited : for a Suchet you get many Grouchys, Vandamnes, Oudinots which where out of their depth once they commanded bigger forces.
Well, I don't know which of my statements weren't based on facts or were offensive.
First , I started with Waterloo being not that decisive which was even supported by your statements.
Secondly, I was for Trafalgar, Leipzig, Spain and Russia being decisive.
Thirdly, The first coalition was winning till General Joubert ( later sidelined ) stopped the allies.
The rise of Napoleon was not defined in history is my main argument.
Anything could have happened, he may have been taken prisoner by the royal navy in the Mediterranean maybe... It is said there was a monetary transaction involved which cannot be proved which enabled his reaching France.
As to the French Generals if u see their stats in Napoleon1 game, all are 6-5-4 or something, which I felt rubbish and hence I was clarifying their performance. If they get so high stats in game it becomes nonsense.
I totally agree allied command was bad except for a few like - Boucher, Archduke Teschen, etc. Esp. In early war period.
Finally, Suvorov and the Russians, I have read a lot of books and seen usually Russian armies are shown in poor light by French, English and German authors. Russians performed poorly due to bad logistics and bad ammo in early war period. Russians usually had plenty & good quality cannon, strong infantry, excellent cavalry, excellent morale, solid on defensive, fanatic when defending the rodina though slow and plodding in offensives.
In 1799 Revolutionary France wasn't strong as portrayed. The 1st coalition was defeated by Revolutionary fervour, 3 and 4 by Napoleonic brilliance but 2nd coalition lost due to infighting among the allies.
Rascals, would you live forever? - Frederick the Great.
Rest assured, I didn't mean you had been offensive in any way, you are a polite and courteous poster, so no worries. Although harsh my post was directed at your very definitive conclusions regarding Zuvorov and how he would have marched to Paris straight on with the right troops. 1799 France wasn't 1814 France exhausted after 25 years of wars and particularly all the losses from Napoleon's war. In 1799 the revolution is still full of vigor if trying to find a stable incarnation (which eventually was the empire). 200 000 austro-russians would have had a very hard time marching throught the country to Paris withouth taking lots of time securing a logistical train, etc..
And saying that the second coalition lost due to coalition infighting is ridiculous. Sure politics play a big role and coalitions are unstable unruly things with different states having different interests, but the second battle of Zurich and Hoehlinden are not "caolition infighting" : They are coalition defeats that led the coalitin to desintegrate and accept peace. My overall point is that you shouldn't jump to conclusions "had so and so done this than it would have unfolded that way". You never know how things could have been derailed.
Lastly as you say we are in agreements on manys things (and disagree on others), and regarding french leaders in game we seem to agree that they shouldn't be made too strong : they are strongish compared to their early rivals, but in absolute most of them are solid, not brilliant.
And saying that the second coalition lost due to coalition infighting is ridiculous. Sure politics play a big role and coalitions are unstable unruly things with different states having different interests, but the second battle of Zurich and Hoehlinden are not "caolition infighting" : They are coalition defeats that led the coalitin to desintegrate and accept peace. My overall point is that you shouldn't jump to conclusions "had so and so done this than it would have unfolded that way". You never know how things could have been derailed.
Lastly as you say we are in agreements on manys things (and disagree on others), and regarding french leaders in game we seem to agree that they shouldn't be made too strong : they are strongish compared to their early rivals, but in absolute most of them are solid, not brilliant.
Your other points, i have also said it, the allies weren't one, they all had their own self interests.
As for French Generals, i have already replied, now to the main statement you make-
Inferior massed Russians is an old fallacy fed by French, English and later German propaganda.
Let us see a campaign by campaign measure of the Russians-
1. First and Second Coalition - Russian performance was quite good, Russian politics under Tsar Paul awful/
2. Third Coalition- as Austria's allies, they lost at Austerlitz, the site was Austrian, the plans also were Austrian.
Score- 2:0 in favor of France.
3. 4th Coalition - Once Russians entered, Eylau and Heilsberg were bloody setbacks for the French though at Friedland Russians badly lost.
3:0
The next time after Freidland the French and Russians fought would be in the Russian invasion- A gap of 5 years.
4. Russian Invasion - Disaster for France and decisive victory for Russia.
Against the 685000 fielded overall by Bonaparte, the Russians had a front-line of 200000, a Reserve of 100000 and another 150000+ were raised from the depots during the campaign, a total of 450000+ which includes some 80000 Cossacks and 100000 Militia.
685000 Troops invade, ~200000 are left on the Flanks, another ~100000 Prussians and other Germans escape or change sides, ~200000 French are captured of which about half survive (100000+ released post 1814 and several thousand of these fight in 1815), ~100000 escape in the end and another ~100000 died in various battles in a period of ~6 months. (all approximations with 5-10% variances)
As for Winter, Battle of Berezina as per my memory is in mid or late November so December, January and February weren't even touched.
Big Russian victories like - Tarutino, Krasnoi, Vyazma, 2nd Polotsk etc are skipped by many of the older writers.
Even pre-Borodino, -- Smolensk, Valutino, 1st Polotsk, the Russians retreated but in good order and after near equal casualties.
Borodino is a victory sure, but in Strategic sense a Pyrrhic victory.
I would give Russia - 2:0 for the Decisive Victory here as France lost its entire Horse and Cannon equipment besides logistics train, all this hurt badly in the German Campaign.
Total Score - 3:2.
5. Sixth Coalition- Decisive Victory for Russia which headed the Coalition.
Score - 3:3
6. Seventh Coalition- Decisive Victory Again
Score - 3:4.
Final Result- the whole work of the Valois-Bourbon Dynasty starting from 1500s, gaining momentum by 1650s is lost and in 1815, Russia is the pre-eminent power on the continent with France a distant second, in coming decades it would slip further.
Overall Strategic Result for France- Disaster.
As for French Generals, i have already replied, now to the main statement you make-
Drake001 wrote:
As far as your statements about Russian soldiers and army vs the French....whoo. Your "cossack" is showing. All I can say is scoreboard.
.
Inferior massed Russians is an old fallacy fed by French, English and later German propaganda.
Let us see a campaign by campaign measure of the Russians-
1. First and Second Coalition - Russian performance was quite good, Russian politics under Tsar Paul awful/
2. Third Coalition- as Austria's allies, they lost at Austerlitz, the site was Austrian, the plans also were Austrian.
Score- 2:0 in favor of France.
3. 4th Coalition - Once Russians entered, Eylau and Heilsberg were bloody setbacks for the French though at Friedland Russians badly lost.
3:0
The next time after Freidland the French and Russians fought would be in the Russian invasion- A gap of 5 years.
4. Russian Invasion - Disaster for France and decisive victory for Russia.
Against the 685000 fielded overall by Bonaparte, the Russians had a front-line of 200000, a Reserve of 100000 and another 150000+ were raised from the depots during the campaign, a total of 450000+ which includes some 80000 Cossacks and 100000 Militia.
685000 Troops invade, ~200000 are left on the Flanks, another ~100000 Prussians and other Germans escape or change sides, ~200000 French are captured of which about half survive (100000+ released post 1814 and several thousand of these fight in 1815), ~100000 escape in the end and another ~100000 died in various battles in a period of ~6 months. (all approximations with 5-10% variances)
As for Winter, Battle of Berezina as per my memory is in mid or late November so December, January and February weren't even touched.
Big Russian victories like - Tarutino, Krasnoi, Vyazma, 2nd Polotsk etc are skipped by many of the older writers.
Even pre-Borodino, -- Smolensk, Valutino, 1st Polotsk, the Russians retreated but in good order and after near equal casualties.
Borodino is a victory sure, but in Strategic sense a Pyrrhic victory.
I would give Russia - 2:0 for the Decisive Victory here as France lost its entire Horse and Cannon equipment besides logistics train, all this hurt badly in the German Campaign.
Total Score - 3:2.
5. Sixth Coalition- Decisive Victory for Russia which headed the Coalition.
Score - 3:3
6. Seventh Coalition- Decisive Victory Again
Score - 3:4.
Final Result- the whole work of the Valois-Bourbon Dynasty starting from 1500s, gaining momentum by 1650s is lost and in 1815, Russia is the pre-eminent power on the continent with France a distant second, in coming decades it would slip further.
Overall Strategic Result for France- Disaster.
Rascals, would you live forever? - Frederick the Great.
veji1 wrote:Rest assured, I didn't mean you had been offensive in any way, you are a polite and courteous poster, so no worries. Although harsh my post was directed at your very definitive conclusions regarding Zuvorov and how he would have marched to Paris straight on with the right troops. 1799 France wasn't 1814 France exhausted after 25 years of wars and particularly all the losses from Napoleon's war. In 1799 the revolution is still full of vigor if trying to find a stable incarnation (which eventually was the empire). 200 000 austro-russians would have had a very hard time marching throught the country to Paris withouth taking lots of time securing a logistical train, etc..
And saying that the second coalition lost due to coalition infighting is ridiculous. Sure politics play a big role and coalitions are unstable unruly things with different states having different interests, but the second battle of Zurich and Hoehlinden are not "caolition infighting" : They are coalition defeats that led the coalitin to desintegrate and accept peace. My overall point is that you shouldn't jump to conclusions "had so and so done this than it would have unfolded that way". You never know how things could have been derailed.
Lastly as you say we are in agreements on manys things (and disagree on others), and regarding french leaders in game we seem to agree that they shouldn't be made too strong : they are strongish compared to their early rivals, but in absolute most of them are solid, not brilliant.
Coalition did make war difficult on the allies as in every other war, see the 7 year war or the 1st and 2nd world wars, the single powers have an advantage.
There is no diffusion of command.
My entire point is that making French Generals - 6-5-4 means the game is uphill as allies, sure Napoleon should start strong-
I have posted in another post that he should start at 6-7-7 with a lot of useful traits and every year or two slip down the ladder bit by bit.
Similarly, French Generals like Davout or Messena can start at 5-4-4 and 5-4-3 respectively, the others shouldn't have strategic rating above 3 and overall ratings above 4 in any case, since their performance was bad when they didn't have the umbrella of Nappy.
Which means you can use the Schwarzenberg Plan from the beginning as the allies - this option should remain viable.
Rascals, would you live forever? - Frederick the Great.
Shri wrote:Your other points, i have also said it, the allies weren't one, they all had their own self interests.
As for French Generals, i have already replied, now to the main statement you make-
Inferior massed Russians is an old fallacy fed by French, English and later German propaganda.
Let us see a campaign by campaign measure of the Russians-
1. First and Second Coalition - Russian performance was quite good, Russian politics under Tsar Paul awful/
2. Third Coalition- as Austria's allies, they lost at Austerlitz, the site was Austrian, the plans also were Austrian.
Score- 2:0 in favor of France.
3. 4th Coalition - Once Russians entered, Eylau and Heilsberg were bloody setbacks for the French though at Friedland Russians badly lost.
3:0
The next time after Freidland the French and Russians fought would be in the Russian invasion- A gap of 5 years.
4. Russian Invasion - Disaster for France and decisive victory for Russia.
Against the 685000 fielded overall by Bonaparte, the Russians had a front-line of 200000, a Reserve of 100000 and another 150000+ were raised from the depots during the campaign, a total of 450000+ which includes some 80000 Cossacks and 100000 Militia.
685000 Troops invade, ~200000 are left on the Flanks, another ~100000 Prussians and other Germans escape or change sides, ~200000 French are captured of which about half survive (100000+ released post 1814 and several thousand of these fight in 1815), ~100000 escape in the end and another ~100000 died in various battles in a period of ~6 months. (all approximations with 5-10% variances)
As for Winter, Battle of Berezina as per my memory is in mid or late November so December, January and February weren't even touched.
Big Russian victories like - Tarutino, Krasnoi, Vyazma, 2nd Polotsk etc are skipped by many of the older writers.
Even pre-Borodino, -- Smolensk, Valutino, 1st Polotsk, the Russians retreated but in good order and after near equal casualties.
Borodino is a victory sure, but in Strategic sense a Pyrrhic victory.
I would give Russia - 2:0 for the Decisive Victory here as France lost its entire Horse and Cannon equipment besides logistics train, all this hurt badly in the German Campaign.
Total Score - 3:2.
5. Sixth Coalition- Decisive Victory for Russia which headed the Coalition.
Score - 3:3
6. Seventh Coalition- Decisive Victory Again
Score - 3:4.
Final Result- the whole work of the Valois-Bourbon Dynasty starting from 1500s, gaining momentum by 1650s is lost and in 1815, Russia is the pre-eminent power on the continent with France a distant second, in coming decades it would slip further.
Overall Strategic Result for France- Disaster.
Dude come on, your comments make no sense whatsoever. First of all no one said the Russians were "inferior (and) massed". Actually Napoleon himself and the french officers commented on the Eylau-Friedland campaing that fighting against the Russians was a PITA. But let's not rewrite history "had the powder been dry", had "Czar Paul not been a dimwit", etc...
Let it rest.
-
Jim Pfleck
- Private
- Posts: 33
- Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2007 7:57 am
One issue with the French Generals and Marshals is that they did not exist within a modern military hierarchy. By 1805, the French Army had permanent brigades, divisions, and corps, with the associated staffs and the cohesion of working together. At least until 1812, the other armies were organized ad-hoc for each campaign and often, as seen in 1809, constantly shuffled during campaigns, which did not allow for higher levels of organizations to gain cohesion.
On the other hand, the Marshals did not have a legal pecking order and many of them were kings, princes, dukes, etc with large egos. Unless Napoleon was there in person, the marshals rarely showed obedience to orders given to them by a marshal whom Napy had temporarily put in charge of them. This is seen over and over again in Spain and in 1813. Davout, Massena, Soult, Eugene (underrated in my opinion), Lannes, and others were excellent combat and campaign leaders. Many of them excelled in both attack and defense and I think the ones I listed, and maybe a few others, should have at least a 4 strategic/activation rating. Others, such as Oudinot, should have lower activation so if they are out of range of the army commander they do not do as well.
I like the idea of starting out the French with high experience and using the replacement system to degrade them. I think the Russians and Prussians should actually be similar. By 1813, the Russian Army was a mixed bag of experience and combat efficiency (at least their infantry). Russian generals especially gained in experience and competence as the wars progressed and I think that the AGEOD system models this well.
On the other hand, the Marshals did not have a legal pecking order and many of them were kings, princes, dukes, etc with large egos. Unless Napoleon was there in person, the marshals rarely showed obedience to orders given to them by a marshal whom Napy had temporarily put in charge of them. This is seen over and over again in Spain and in 1813. Davout, Massena, Soult, Eugene (underrated in my opinion), Lannes, and others were excellent combat and campaign leaders. Many of them excelled in both attack and defense and I think the ones I listed, and maybe a few others, should have at least a 4 strategic/activation rating. Others, such as Oudinot, should have lower activation so if they are out of range of the army commander they do not do as well.
I like the idea of starting out the French with high experience and using the replacement system to degrade them. I think the Russians and Prussians should actually be similar. By 1813, the Russian Army was a mixed bag of experience and combat efficiency (at least their infantry). Russian generals especially gained in experience and competence as the wars progressed and I think that the AGEOD system models this well.
I like the idea of starting out the French with high experience and using the replacement system to degrade them. I think the Russians and Prussians should actually be similar. By 1813, the Russian Army was a mixed bag of experience and combat efficiency (at least their infantry). Russian generals especially gained in experience and competence as the wars progressed and I think that the AGEOD system models this well.
This presupposes though that all of Napoleon's veteran troops are frozen in the snow in Russia and that in 1813 he has to fight with teenagers who did not have time for training. I don't remember the exact statistic but the average age of Napoleon's troops fell significantly following the frostbite fiasco. That's why the quality of the French troops degraded.
If the player of the French does not have this happen and still has his veteran army I don't see why the troops would have to be degraded any more than anyone else.
The Russians showed the most improvement during and following 1812, naturally, simply because they were finally on campaign and getting some real "practice." They were training as the went.
"The new army was huge but the 18- and 19-years old soldiers lacked stamina and the rapid marches and hunger weakened them physically. Camille Rousset gives the following as a common type of report on inspection: "Some of the men are of rather weak appearance. The battalion had no idea of manouveruring; but 9/10 of the men can manage and load their muskets passably."
General Lambardiere writes: "These battalions arrive fatigued, every day I supply them with special carriage for the weak and lame ... All these battalions are French; I must say that the young soldiers show courage and good-will. Every possible moment is utilised in teaching them to load their arms and bring them to the shoulder." So poor were they in physique that the Minister of Police protests against their being drilled in the Champs Elysees during the hour of promenade, on account of the scoffing and jeering they gave rise to.
After the disastrous campaign in Russia the quality of cavalry was low. There were too many young soldiers, hastily trained, and hardly 10-20 % of the officers were classed as capable. Retired officers had been recalled, many old NCOs had been promoted lieutenants. Nearly 80 % of the new cavalrymen had never ridden a horse. In Hamburg the young cuirassiers having been ordered to leave on reconnaissance and after few minutes all were dismounted, with their horses running free in the streets. The Germans laughed openly."
The high stress suffered during military campaign (they were put into action without full training) exhausted many of them.
-
Jim Pfleck
- Private
- Posts: 33
- Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2007 7:57 am
Drake,
We are in agreement. You said "If the player of the French does not have this happen and still has his veteran army I don't see why the troops would have to be degraded any more than anyone else." and that is exactly what I meant. They should start decent and from there the player determines if they keep their high standard by how the game plays out.
By 1813, all of the armies were of poorer quality regarding training and, in at least the case of the French, stamina. In my opinion, one thing that had really changed was that the Russians officer corps now had extensive experience on the march and in battle and the PRussians, while lacking perhaps the experience, were much more fresh and their regulars were well trained. It is my understanding that the Austrian Army in 1813 and 1814 was pretty poor and had slipped quite a bit in training and cohesion from their 1809 peak...
We are in agreement. You said "If the player of the French does not have this happen and still has his veteran army I don't see why the troops would have to be degraded any more than anyone else." and that is exactly what I meant. They should start decent and from there the player determines if they keep their high standard by how the game plays out.
By 1813, all of the armies were of poorer quality regarding training and, in at least the case of the French, stamina. In my opinion, one thing that had really changed was that the Russians officer corps now had extensive experience on the march and in battle and the PRussians, while lacking perhaps the experience, were much more fresh and their regulars were well trained. It is my understanding that the Austrian Army in 1813 and 1814 was pretty poor and had slipped quite a bit in training and cohesion from their 1809 peak...
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests