Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Overrated Battles

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 23456 8>
Author
deadkenny View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 21-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 994
  Quote deadkenny Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Overrated Battles
    Posted: 15-Mar-2008 at 15:21
Originally posted by Temujin

well, there are two major reasons why the 1815 Army was only a shadow of its former glory:

first reason, many Generals refused to serve Napoleon again, amongst them the two best cavalry commanders France had left, Nansouty and Latour-Maubourg. one of the reasons we have Grouchy which became in 1815 the last Napoleonic French Marechal.

second reason: the Army wasn't consoldiated at all, the first curiassiers had no curiasses, the french army underwent a re-organization under the Bourbons and again after Napoleons return from elba, which caused some regiments to fight at Waterloo with Royalist insignia. also, after the 1814 campaign, not only generals but also individual soldiers had lost their faith in Napoleon, which caused the instant collapse of Napoleons Army of the North after Waterloo.


Needless to say I disagree with your characterization.  Sure, the 1815 army was a 'shadow of its former glory', if by 'former glory' you are considering 1807.  However, the French army was also a 'shadow of its former glory' in 1814.  So it is important to keep in mind that we are comparing 1815 to 1814, and not to some earlier point in time.  Regarding the leadership, some marshals may have declined to serve, and in some cases Napoleon declined their offer to serve, wisely or not (e.g. Murat).  However, more important than the leaders that were available was Napoleon's choice of how to use those that were available.  Having Ney and Grouchy as his 'wing commanders' was not the best choice.  Davout was available, but was left back in Paris.  Arguably losing Berthier was critical, however, there were better choices than to use Soult in his place.  The marshals / generals had already lost faith in Napoleon during the 1814 campaign, in fact after Leipzig.  That was part of the reason Paris did not resist and his marshals abandoned him so readily.  It is true that the morale of the 1815 was 'brittle', in that one major defeat 'broke' them.  However, that doesn't imply that the situation was any better in 1814, in fact it was even worse.
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana
Back to Top
Temujin View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Sirdar Bahadur

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5221
  Quote Temujin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Mar-2008 at 15:31
i disagree the Marshalls backstabbed Napoleon, i think it was rather vice versa. Marmonts corps was almost destroyed at Fere-Champenoise and defending Paris was fruitless. seeing the suffering of Leipzig, he didn't wanted Paris to see the same fate, though the other French forces put up a decent fight. the army of 1814 achieved more with less troops and still most of the same generals and high spirited soldiers that served Napoleon before. nothing of that remained in 1815.
Back to Top
deadkenny View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 21-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 994
  Quote deadkenny Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Mar-2008 at 15:38
Originally posted by Temujin

i disagree the Marshalls backstabbed Napoleon, i think it was rather vice versa. Marmonts corps was almost destroyed at Fere-Champenoise and defending Paris was fruitless. seeing the suffering of Leipzig, he didn't wanted Paris to see the same fate, though the other French forces put up a decent fight. the army of 1814 achieved more with less troops and still most of the same generals and high spirited soldiers that served Napoleon before. nothing of that remained in 1815.


Regarding the marshals, we'll have to agree to disagree.  Your comment about Leipzig is telling, that defeat was what caused soldiers to 'lose faith' in Napoleon.  I would say that the critcal difference in performance between 1814 and 1815 was Napoleon himself.  The 1814 campaign was one of Napoleon's finest, however, the force he had to work with was inadequate.  In 1815, Napoleon started off strong but then performed very poorly during the 3 critical days.  That was my original point - in 1814 Napoleon performed superbly but his army wasn't up to the task.  In 1815 overall he had a better force at his disposal, but Napoleon himself failed to perform at the critical point in time. 


Edited by deadkenny - 15-Mar-2008 at 15:39
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana
Back to Top
Temujin View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Sirdar Bahadur

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5221
  Quote Temujin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Mar-2008 at 16:13
the French Army didn't lost faith in Napoleon after Leipzig at all, none of the memoirs and recollections of soldiers indicate anyhting of the like.

Napoleons plans were always good, but sometimes the execution of those was quite different. given the varying sucesses of him was not result of Napoleon but his Army, or rather the armies he faced, this is what led to the myth of Napoleon having heights and lows in commandership.
Back to Top
deadkenny View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 21-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 994
  Quote deadkenny Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Mar-2008 at 16:30
Originally posted by Temujin

the French Army didn't lost faith in Napoleon after Leipzig at all, none of the memoirs and recollections of soldiers indicate anyhting of the like.

Napoleons plans were always good, but sometimes the execution of those was quite different. given the varying sucesses of him was not result of Napoleon but his Army, or rather the armies he faced, this is what led to the myth of Napoleon having heights and lows in commandership.


Not everyone in the French army wrote memoirs.  Nor would they be likely to portray themselves as less than loyal.  However, some of the 'higher ups' had hopes to maintain their positions after Napoleon's fall.  In some cases those hopes were initially realized, e.g. Ney, in many other cases they were not.  In any case even Ney came to be disillusioned under the Bourbons, and thus in many cases Napoleon's command was more welcomed and accepted in 1815 than it had been in 1814.

Regarding Napoleon's performance, I strongly disagree.  He definitely had his highs, when he was 'on top' of things, and his lows, when he seemed inexplicably lethargic.  In his 'prime' there is no way he would have allowed Ney to run the battle at Waterloo the way that he did early on.  Much time was wasted, when the British may have been defeated before the Prussians could intervene.   Napoleon's 'inconsistent' leadership later in his career is clearly not a 'myth', it is well recorded in the history of his campaigns. 
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana
Back to Top
Temujin View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Sirdar Bahadur

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5221
  Quote Temujin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Mar-2008 at 19:22
in case of Napoleon, he wasn't hismelf present when Ney made this decision because of his stomach problems he left the command post a couple of times. and Ney, like Murat is special when it comes to shifting alliances. they were the only two commanders who first shifted their loyalty away and then back to Napoleon, others were more consistent. so Ney is not representative in the least when it comes to the notions of the french soldiery and generalcy.
Back to Top
deadkenny View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 21-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 994
  Quote deadkenny Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Mar-2008 at 19:28
Originally posted by Temujin

in case of Napoleon, he wasn't hismelf present when Ney made this decision because of his stomach problems he left the command post a couple of times. and Ney, like Murat is special when it comes to shifting alliances. they were the only two commanders who first shifted their loyalty away and then back to Napoleon, others were more consistent. so Ney is not representative in the least when it comes to the notions of the french soldiery and generalcy.


As you said yourself:

Originally posted by Temujin

...many Generals refused to serve Napoleon again, amongst them the two best cavalry commanders France had left, Nansouty and Latour-Maubourg ...


So, other commanders did in fact 'shift their loyalties', from serving Napoleon to not serving him.  Ney was perhaps somewhat unique in flipping back again, however, he was not unique in hoping to hold onto a high position after Napoleon's first abdication.

Regarding Napoleon's 'illness', that may have contributed to his poor performance, perhaps it was the entire cause of it.  However, the point in that for whatever reason, Napoleon's performance in 1815 was much weaker than his performance in 1814.  The army, on the other hand, was better in some ways in 1815 than it was in 1814 (being bigger being an important difference!).


Edited by deadkenny - 15-Mar-2008 at 19:30
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana
Back to Top
Temujin View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Sirdar Bahadur

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5221
  Quote Temujin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Mar-2008 at 20:02
yeah but Ney was the only one who got court-martialed. also Napoleon was not weaker in his descisions nor determination in 1815 than before, remember the night march to Charlerois, his plan to deal with both enemy armies separately and his victory at Ligny, eventually he was only weak one day, the day of Waterloo.
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Mar-2008 at 21:49
 Tours is not overated,but at the same time it was only one battle in the larger islamo-frankish conflict and was just one of several battles,
Back to Top
cavalry4ever View Drop Down
AE Moderator
AE Moderator
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator Emeritus

Joined: 17-Nov-2004
Location: Virginia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 589
  Quote cavalry4ever Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Mar-2008 at 22:09
I was surprised to find Gettysburg on that list. I would probaly agree with Antietam but not Gettysburg.
For geographic reasons (Cumberland Pass) and communications (major road intersection).

For political reasons - this was first major Union victory. I believe loosing that battle would open Pennsylvania (major Union state) and force union to negotiate truce with CSA. Forcing negotiations was also reason for Lee to attack Union states. This is the time of Union low. The riots in New your and other signs of dissatisfaction with war.


Edited by cavalry4ever - 21-Mar-2008 at 00:29
Back to Top
deadkenny View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 21-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 994
  Quote deadkenny Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Mar-2008 at 01:00
Originally posted by Temujin

yeah but Ney was the only one who got court-martialed. also Napoleon was not weaker in his descisions nor determination in 1815 than before, remember the night march to Charlerois, his plan to deal with both enemy armies separately and his victory at Ligny, eventually he was only weak one day, the day of Waterloo.


Certainly Napoleon had his moments even in 1815.  IMHO he made a good decision in going after the British and Prussians in Belgium, rather than waiting for the Allies to come to him.  He manoeuvered his army into an advantageous position, allowing him to 'separate' the British and Prussians and concentrate on one (the Prussians) to defeat them, even though the combined total Allied force outnumbered his own.  However, it was the consistency that was lacking.  In the end he failed to follow up on his initial success (for whatever reason - medical or other) and ultimately lost.  The point I was trying to make originally was that Napoleon's performance in 1814 was superior, but his force was inadequate.  In 1815 he had an adequate force, but ultimately the failure was his in the latter stages of the campaign in Belgium.
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana
Back to Top
Temujin View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Sirdar Bahadur

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5221
  Quote Temujin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Mar-2008 at 19:53
Originally posted by cavalry4ever

I was surprised to find Gettysburg on that list. I would probaly agree with Antietam but not Gettysburg.
For geographic reasons (Cumberland Pass) and communications (major road intersection).

For political reasons - this was first major Union victory. I believe loosing that battle would open Pennsylvania (major Union state) and force union to negotiate truce with CSA. Forcing negotiations was also reason for Lee to attack Union states. This the time of Union low. The riots in New your and other signs of dissatisfaction with war.


well, other than that, i always read the war was won in the west, and gettysburg wasn't exactly in the western theater so either one statement must be false...
Back to Top
Temujin View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Sirdar Bahadur

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5221
  Quote Temujin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Mar-2008 at 19:54
Originally posted by deadkenny

The point I was trying to make originally was that Napoleon's performance in 1814 was superior, but his force was inadequate.  In 1815 he had an adequate force, but ultimately the failure was his in the latter stages of the campaign in Belgium.


yeah i can agree with that.
Back to Top
Jonathan4290 View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 03-Mar-2008
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 185
  Quote Jonathan4290 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Mar-2008 at 23:37
Originally posted by Temujin

Originally posted by cavalry4ever

I was surprised to find Gettysburg on that list. I would probaly agree with Antietam but not Gettysburg.
For geographic reasons (Cumberland Pass) and communications (major road intersection).

For political reasons - this was first major Union victory. I believe loosing that battle would open Pennsylvania (major Union state) and force union to negotiate truce with CSA. Forcing negotiations was also reason for Lee to attack Union states. This the time of Union low. The riots in New your and other signs of dissatisfaction with war.


well, other than that, i always read the war was won in the west, and gettysburg wasn't exactly in the western theater so either one statement must be false...
 
Yes, the war was most definitely won in the west. The Vicksburg and Chattanooga campaigns allowed the Atlanta and Savannah campaigns which decimated the already inferior Confederate economy. The Confederates won tons of battles in the Northern theater and none of them seemed to bring them closer to victory. Winning Gettysburg was a luxury for the Union, probably not the decisive battle.
Like great battles? How about when they're animated for easy viewing?
Visit my site, The Art of Battle: Animated Battle Maps at www.theartofbattle.com.
Back to Top
Temujin View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Sirdar Bahadur

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5221
  Quote Temujin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-Mar-2008 at 19:24
so you would say Vicksburg was the decisive battle?
Back to Top
deadkenny View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 21-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 994
  Quote deadkenny Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-Mar-2008 at 20:10
It is of course difficult to point to just one battle that resulted in the 'collapse' of the CSA in the western theater.  Vicksburg was no doubt important, although helping to open the Miss. River for the use of the Union was probably more important than severing the CSA links with their far west (such links were not that important to the CSA).  However, it should be noted that Port Hudson also needed to be taken even after Vicksburg fell in order for the Miss. to be open all the way to the Gulf.  If I had to choose just one battle, I would go with Chattanooga.  Up to that point the CSA had managed to 'contain' any significant Union progress in the area.  The CSA defeat at Chattanooga led directly to the 'collapse' of the front and the drive all the way to Atlanta and ultimately Sherman's infamous 'march to the sea' which not only 'gutted' the Confederacy but ultimately 'outflanked' the AoNV and produced the final total collapse of Confederate resistance.
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Mar-2008 at 04:34

 

i) Gettysburg. Destroyed some of Lees best divisions, 25000 casualties, he was never able to replace them and his strategic options at that point whittled down to "react" to what the union did, he no longer had reserves which he could use effectivly, Jubal Early in '64 not withstanding.
 
ii) The Overland Campaign of '64. At the start the lines are exactly where they were in '61, at the end Lee was pinned down before Petersburg near Richmond, with all the mobility of a crippled elephant.
 
iii) Vicksburg, opened up the Missisipi, granted that was a process not an event, but still.
 
So for overrated battles? Well Union victories were usually strategic triumphs, triumphs that were unlikely to be overturned and were each a death blow to the CSA. I would go with (for overrated battle), Antietam, Lee was not destroyed, he had managed to prove he could be on the offenive, and the Union army was badly mauled.
 
Back to Top
Temujin View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Sirdar Bahadur

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5221
  Quote Temujin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Mar-2008 at 20:36
actually some argue that Antietam was in fact the most important battle in the eastern theater, not Gettysburg.
Back to Top
Jonathan4290 View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 03-Mar-2008
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 185
  Quote Jonathan4290 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Mar-2008 at 03:17
Antietam probably wasn't too important militarily aside from being another "death blow" as Sparten called it. Antietam was very important in that it gave President Lincoln a result decent enough for morale to give his Emancipation Proclamation. This speech turned the war into a moral crusade against slavery and ensured the European powers wouldn't help the Confederacy. Any involvement would've made the Union blockade less effective at the very least.

Edited by Jonathan4290 - 20-Mar-2008 at 03:18
Like great battles? How about when they're animated for easy viewing?
Visit my site, The Art of Battle: Animated Battle Maps at www.theartofbattle.com.
Back to Top
cavalry4ever View Drop Down
AE Moderator
AE Moderator
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator Emeritus

Joined: 17-Nov-2004
Location: Virginia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 589
  Quote cavalry4ever Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Mar-2008 at 00:41
Originally posted by Temujin

actually some argue that Antietam was in fact the most important battle in the eastern theater, not Gettysburg.


From purely military viewpoint it was an embarrassing bloody stalemate. It did show Union generals as pretty inept. Only heroism of soldiers prevented a debacle. Union army outnumbered CSA 2:1 and could not get its act together. Lee's army escaped to Virginia in pretty good shape. The timing of Emancipation Proclamation was more a spin to make this battle look as a resounding victory.

Gettysburg on other hand is an uncontested victory that turned the tide of Civil War.

Edited by cavalry4ever - 21-Mar-2008 at 00:42
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 23456 8>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.078 seconds.