How would Napoleon and his Grand Army fair agains the CSA Army
- Thread starter Ward
- Start date
That depends on the timeframe. As soon as the CSA Army has enough minie rifles things get very bad for the Grand Army. One of the reasons that the ACW was so bloody was that it combined mostly Napoleon-style tactics (Grand Batteries, huge blocks of soldiers) with more modern weapons (better arty, minnie rifles). Against an army equipped like the Grand army Pickets charge might have worked.
I`ve once read that even Lord Raglan could have beaten a Napoleon army with his equipment and he was certainly no Lee or Jackson.
I`ve once read that even Lord Raglan could have beaten a Napoleon army with his equipment and he was certainly no Lee or Jackson.
Redbeard
Banned
Minie rifles would certainly make a difference and would make attacking a CSA position extremely costly. If the CSA also has rifled artillery in substantial numbers the CSA would also have a chance of smashing any Grande Armee force before they can reply. But still success is not guaranteed. I consider the operational versatility of Napoleon and the Grande Armee way beyond the CSA, and if cut off and surrounded by converging GA Corps modern weapons are not that much of a comfort. The GA wpould also be capaple of operating in far larger numbers (1/2 million men was operated in the field - before railway!). I really think we need a Moltke Senior and the German General Staff before the GA can be surely matched.
The GA cavalry would be be very superior to the CSA, both in numbers and quality. That will first be important in the crucial battle of recon, and the CSA risks going blind into battle. Next in the battle, a draw or slight tactical defeat seriously risk turning into something disastrous if you are seriously inferior in cavalry. At this time cavalry was on the edge of having lost it's battlefield role, but was still all important in recon. The lack of decisive battlefield deployment of cavalry in the ACW is IMO more due to the parts not having much if any battlefield (heavy) cavalry than to the emerging obolescence of cavalry.
Regards
Steffen Redebeard
The GA cavalry would be be very superior to the CSA, both in numbers and quality. That will first be important in the crucial battle of recon, and the CSA risks going blind into battle. Next in the battle, a draw or slight tactical defeat seriously risk turning into something disastrous if you are seriously inferior in cavalry. At this time cavalry was on the edge of having lost it's battlefield role, but was still all important in recon. The lack of decisive battlefield deployment of cavalry in the ACW is IMO more due to the parts not having much if any battlefield (heavy) cavalry than to the emerging obolescence of cavalry.
Regards
Steffen Redebeard
The difference that Minnie rifles make is hard to overstate: they raise the range for effective fire from abt. 80 to 400 meters. The Russian army found to it`s dismay that columns which were so sucessfully employed during the Napoleonic campaigns were simply butchered by more modern rifles in Crimea.
Also, Napoleon was a great friend of artillery, hardly surprising since he started in that part of the armed forces. Grand batteries are his invention IIRC. More modern, farer ranged arty would make that a costly error.
Also half a million men were rarely mustered for a single battle.
Also, Napoleon was a great friend of artillery, hardly surprising since he started in that part of the armed forces. Grand batteries are his invention IIRC. More modern, farer ranged arty would make that a costly error.
Also half a million men were rarely mustered for a single battle.
Redbeard
Banned
I'm not in any way trying to downsize the Minie rifle, it is much more important than is usually anticipated today. But it doesn't provide miracles by itself, and by the time of the ACW melee wasn't discarded yet, and once into that a bajonet on a musket is as good as a bajonet on a rifle. But most importantly, the CSA will seriosuly risk being defeated in detail, as it will know very little about where and when the enemy is. Rifled artillery is no good if they have no idea where to shoot or deploy and a Minie rifle armed Armycorps can't stand against an entire army with muskets.
Regards
Steffen Redbeard
Regards
Steffen Redbeard
I would bet on the Confederate army unless the Grand Armee outnumbered them by over 2 to 1. Confederate cavalry was pretty good throughout the war - equal to or better than that of the Grand Armee.
It also depends on whether Napoleon knew in advance that his opponents had weapons with much longer range than he did, or whether he would have to learn this by having a massive attack cut to pieces.
It also depends on whether Napoleon knew in advance that his opponents had weapons with much longer range than he did, or whether he would have to learn this by having a massive attack cut to pieces.
Redbeard
Banned
Paul Spring said:
I wonder how you reach that conclusion. ACW cavalry would best be compared to light irregular cavalry of the Napoleonic wars, something inbetween volunteer Prussian Jäegers, Garde d'Honeur and Cossacks. Very brave and dashing, but not capable of standing up against regular battlefield cavalry or to be entirely trusted in recon as professional light cavalry.
Regards
Steffen Redbeard
ACW cavalry is indeed lighter... which is why I would bet on them. They are faster.. and they are also equipped with a variety of percussion pistols that would put paid to lancers, curaissers, etc....
Dave Howery said:
Confederate cavalry also carried rifled carbines (Enfield, Sharps, etc.) with roughly twice the range of those carried by French Napoleonic cavalry. So all they have to do is ride away and snipe at them without closing.
Redbeard said:
The problem with your argument is that the French are going to have to get close enough to use their bayonets in order for that factor to come into play. Against troops armed with Minie rifles, that was EXTREMELY difficult to do. That is why there were only a handful of bayonet fights during the ACW...the long-range firepower of the Minie rifle stopped charges long before they got within melee range.
Redbeard
Banned
Light cavalry wasn't light because that held any major intrisic values, but because mounting all your cavalry on big battlecavalry horses would be extremely expensive, and the big horse anyway didn't give any advantages in the important recon role. But if you pitch light cavalry in battle against heavy, the light cavalry is almost everytime going to loose.
Typically ACW cavalry was used for recon (not good enough for battle cavalry), but against the GA they are up against a huge number of very professional and experienced light cavalrymen. In the "battle of recon" the CSA cavalry is likely to be swept away by superior numbers of GA cavalrymen having better tactics also.
Cavalry relying on their firearms, be it pistols or carbines, is a waste of good horses, and was only feasible when the horses were no good for anything but carrying the trooper to a position where he can dismount and act like infantry (the original role of the Dragoon). In the skirmishing battles CSA cavalry armed with rifles might be able to do some sniping with their rifled carbines, but it wont keep them from being swept back by the GA cavalry. If there is one situation I wouldn't like to be sniper in, it's against good cavalry (and using smoke heavy black powder). You might pick one or two off, but in no time they're behind you and pick you off, even if they have to throw rocks at you.
To stop cavalry with firearms you need accurate massed fire, and that simply wasn't possible from horseback - rifles or not.
The problem of getting close enough would be acute if you charge against units in stable and coherent formations - it already was in the musket age - for infantry as well as cavalry. But in order to have your army deployed in stable and coherent formations, you need good intelligence on when and where it is likely to meet the enemy, and that is where the light cavalry comes in, and the reason why cavalry kept its recon role far beyond the battlefield role.
And I'm not talking about the single battalions or regiments being ordered in square in time, but much more of your armycorps being converged for battle in the right time and place. That art Napoleon was a master of and the allies took long to learn, but anyway you have no chance at all if you're swept aside in the recon battle.
At Gettyburg the CSA fielded some 7-8000 cavalry in one cavalry corps, while the GA at Leipzig 1813, well past the prime of Napoleonic cavalry, fielded some 40.000 men cavarly organised in five cavalrycorps plus typically a cavalry brigade to each armycorps and then of course the famous Imperial Guard of 8000 men cavalry (incl. in the 40.000). I just don't see how the CSA can win the recon battle when up agaisnt a force of such numbers and quality - rifles or not.
Regards
Steffen Redbeard
That is why the battlefield role of cavalry
Typically ACW cavalry was used for recon (not good enough for battle cavalry), but against the GA they are up against a huge number of very professional and experienced light cavalrymen. In the "battle of recon" the CSA cavalry is likely to be swept away by superior numbers of GA cavalrymen having better tactics also.
Cavalry relying on their firearms, be it pistols or carbines, is a waste of good horses, and was only feasible when the horses were no good for anything but carrying the trooper to a position where he can dismount and act like infantry (the original role of the Dragoon). In the skirmishing battles CSA cavalry armed with rifles might be able to do some sniping with their rifled carbines, but it wont keep them from being swept back by the GA cavalry. If there is one situation I wouldn't like to be sniper in, it's against good cavalry (and using smoke heavy black powder). You might pick one or two off, but in no time they're behind you and pick you off, even if they have to throw rocks at you.
To stop cavalry with firearms you need accurate massed fire, and that simply wasn't possible from horseback - rifles or not.
The problem of getting close enough would be acute if you charge against units in stable and coherent formations - it already was in the musket age - for infantry as well as cavalry. But in order to have your army deployed in stable and coherent formations, you need good intelligence on when and where it is likely to meet the enemy, and that is where the light cavalry comes in, and the reason why cavalry kept its recon role far beyond the battlefield role.
And I'm not talking about the single battalions or regiments being ordered in square in time, but much more of your armycorps being converged for battle in the right time and place. That art Napoleon was a master of and the allies took long to learn, but anyway you have no chance at all if you're swept aside in the recon battle.
At Gettyburg the CSA fielded some 7-8000 cavalry in one cavalry corps, while the GA at Leipzig 1813, well past the prime of Napoleonic cavalry, fielded some 40.000 men cavarly organised in five cavalrycorps plus typically a cavalry brigade to each armycorps and then of course the famous Imperial Guard of 8000 men cavalry (incl. in the 40.000). I just don't see how the CSA can win the recon battle when up agaisnt a force of such numbers and quality - rifles or not.
Regards
Steffen Redbeard
That is why the battlefield role of cavalry
As a diversion, an interesting thing to note is how armies and weapons technology were stagnant for such a long period in history. I once read a book about weapons development that displayed that, with the exception of gunpowder, there was little difference between the army of Alexander the Great and the rival forces at Waterloo, and the effect of such weapons was not so dramatically different as one might think.
The book then went on to compare the idea of replacing Napoleon at Waterloo with Alexander(the consensus was that Alexander would have kicked Wellington to the Channel), and then took the radical idea of replacing the French Army with Alexander's as well! To put it bluntly, unless the loud noises alarmed the newly arrived phalanx, it is quite possible Alexander would have won.
Yet, by the American Civil War, there had been dramatic changes.
The book then went on to compare the idea of replacing Napoleon at Waterloo with Alexander(the consensus was that Alexander would have kicked Wellington to the Channel), and then took the radical idea of replacing the French Army with Alexander's as well! To put it bluntly, unless the loud noises alarmed the newly arrived phalanx, it is quite possible Alexander would have won.
Yet, by the American Civil War, there had been dramatic changes.
Redbeard
Banned
Grimm Reaper said:
I agree that the techincal specifications of the equipment is usually very over estimated in importance (but still interesting to study), and tactics usually underestimated. Logistics are generally ignored alltogether.
In this context I don't see why things should have changed so dramatically by the time of ACW, but we do see the first signs of major changing factors. In ACW railways started to have an importance, but the density of the railway net did not yet allow a significant influence on campaigns. That could be seen however in WWI, where the density of West European railway net meant that a tactical victory at the battlefield could not be exploited faster than a new defensive line could be establised and a counterattack organised. If we imagine WWI fought with the existing railway net, but with armies from Napoleonic times (or Alexander the Great or Roman Legions), that would still have been the case.
So if we desperately have to look for ways to have our CSA be superior it would be providing it with a very dense railway net and keep the opponent stubbornly fixed to horse carts and foot marching. As for armament you can equip the CSA with sticks and rocks, it´s not really important - well almost
Regards
Steffen Redbeard