Matrix Games Forums

Sign of for the Pike and Shot Beta!More Games are Coming to Steam! Deal of the Week: Combat Command Return to the Moon on October 31st! Commander: The Great War iPad Wallpapers Generals of the Great WarDeal of the Week Panzer CorpsNew Strategy Titles Join the FamilyTablet Version of Qvadriga gets new patchNew Command Ops: Battles from the Bulge Update
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Which Army is greater? The Grande Armee or the Army of Northern Virginia? I also posted this on FoF.

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Napoleonics] >> Crown of Glory: Emperor's Edition >> Napoleonic History >> Which Army is greater? The Grande Armee or the Army of Northern Virginia? I also posted this on FoF. Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Which Army is greater? The Grande Armee or the Army of ... - 3/31/2009 5:27:21 AM   
Jonah


Posts: 190
Joined: 12/15/2007
Status: offline
As I stated, which Army is Greater? Which have greater leaders?

The similarities: Both armies are similar: They were outnumbered, against all odds, which relied on battlefield victories, Elan and it's commanders.

They relied on battlefield succsses. Napoleon did not have the manpower to win in the end, nor did Lee. They relied on quick victories like Austerlitz or the Seven Days. Both were masters of the battlefield: They both took risks and were aggressive. They took temporary risks for long term sucsess.

Their armies were similar: outnumbered but detirmined soldiers. Thet relied on bravery and elan. They had similar tactics, flank attacks or bayonet charges.

Their commanders: Both armies had great battlefield commanders. Davout was like Longstreet, slow, reserved but brilliant. Lannes was like Jackson: Bold, aggressive and takes many risks. Murat like Stuart: A Brilliant cavalry officer but filled with pomp and glory. Ney like Hood: Brave but not althogether brilliant but still a good soldier. Grouchy like Ewell: Not a bad officer but pinned for a bad scenario when he wasn't aggressive enough.

Their differences: The French had a greater chance for victory. The confederates did not. The French were the greatest trained army in the world, Lee's was far from it. The French had the greatest equipment, the Confederates had some of the worst. No army was more orderly then the French, the confederates were realatively disorganized.

The soldiers: The confederates were indiviually greater soldiers but the French were better as a unit. The Confederate artillery was rather poor as well where as the French had the greatest in history.

The Commanders: Napoleon had a different command style: HE was the mastermind and the commanders helped where as Lee was brilliant but relied more on his subordinates.

The verdict: Both Armies were succsesful in the field. Grande Armee had victories like Austerlitz, Ulm (Which I thought was their greatest), Auerstadt, Jena, Freinland, Six days campaign and more. The Army of Northern Virginia had 7 days, 2nd Mannasass, Fredericksburg, Chancellorsville, Wilderness, Cold Harbor, Spottsylvannia, Ream's station and more. In my opinion Napoleon's victories were more amazig but Lee's were against greater odds. The result in this area: Draw.

The troops: Napoleon's troops were not only better in training, but were greater soldiers in their prime. Result: Grande Armee wins.

The Commanders: While Napoleon's marshals were amazing, I preffered the ANV. They were all geniuses. There was never a greater gathering of talent. Not only the major ones like Jackson or Longstreet but even the brigade commanders. They could think for themselves and obey orders. Result: ANV.

The final result: In their prime, I would say the Grande Armee was by far greater. But by the time 1812 came around they deteriorated. More conscripts, lesser Marshals and more mercenaries. So on averege Lee's Army is greater. But all in all, both are great commands, And Lee's Army wouldn't be what it was without Napoleon's original tactics they later used. So all in all: The Grandee Army wins.

I would love all your opinions on this.
Post #: 1
RE: Which Army is greater? The Grande Armee or the Army... - 4/2/2009 7:52:53 PM   
Feralkoala

 

Posts: 40
Joined: 5/10/2003
From: Troy, NY
Status: offline
An odd comparison,since arguably the ANV under Lee operated on Napoleonic principles. And,as you note, the ANV never had their own version of the truly one-sided victories--very, very puzzling you consider this area a draw. Particularly as you note Wilderness and Spotsylvania as Confederate "victories"; by that measure,you might as well include Eylau and Borodino as French "victories". As well, Napoleon's career spanned almost two decades: Lee's, less than three years.

I think for the height of the Grande Armee in 1805-06, there is no comparison: Napoleon commanded the finest army in the world at that time, with solid enlisted, NCO, and officers, up to and including his corps commanders. Lee's "best" lineup (at Chancellorsville) didn't survive the death of Jackson.

A large part of this is that by 1805 the French had over 10 years of war and the veterans of all ranks to show for it. The Confederacy never had the breathing to develop that sort of broad leadership the French army had--far too many promising officers were killed or maimed before they had the time to mature into solid commanders.

The ANV was a fine organization of its size and arguably the best army-size force in the Civil War (although an argument could certainly be made for the Army of the Tennessee following Grant's campaign and capture of Vicksburg), but there simply was a limit to talent that was reached all too soon.

(in reply to Jonah)
Post #: 2
RE: Which Army is greater? The Grande Armee or the Army... - 4/2/2009 8:44:37 PM   
Mike Parker

 

Posts: 583
Joined: 12/30/2008
From: Houston TX
Status: offline
I would point out, the Grand Armee did some over the ground moves in a campaign of offense that ANV would never have been able to even approach.  I am a huge fan of Lee and the ANV but it was never the tool Napolean had in the Grand Armee, it was amazing it could be cobbled together from disparate parts and made to function such as it did.


(in reply to Feralkoala)
Post #: 3
RE: Which Army is greater? The Grande Armee or the Army... - 4/3/2009 12:57:32 AM   
sulla05

 

Posts: 1091
Joined: 1/11/2005
Status: offline
If Lee had a staff and more competent commanders ( on par with Napoleon's ) he would have had smashing victories. Many times he was beside himself because his plans were not followed through and the Northern forces escaped destruction. If you look at the seven days battles you will find that Lee always believed that McClellan's army should have been easily destroyed. One book I was reading not to long ago compares the staffs between the Napoleonic wars and the Civil war. The civil war staffs were miniscule, totally outclassed by the French staffs.

(in reply to Mike Parker)
Post #: 4
RE: Which Army is greater? The Grande Armee or the Army... - 4/3/2009 8:58:35 PM   
anarchyintheuk

 

Posts: 3613
Joined: 5/5/2004
From: Dallas
Status: offline
La Grande Armee, primarily because of battefield success.

Having said that . . . imo infliction of disproportionate casualties or the destruction of armies was only possible in the Civil War in unusual/rare circumstances: where an army had overwhelming forces (Antietam, Appamattox), an extremely clever maneuver (Hooker's at Chancellorsville, Grant's encirclement of Vicksburg) or a commander did something extremely stupid (Lee fighting at Antietam w/ his back to the river). Even the worst rout on the field (Chickamauga probably) led to little strategic or tactical advantage for the victor. Of those occasions only Vicksburg and Appamattox led to the destruction of an army. The rifled musket had made defense far more formidable than La Grand Armee's time by increasing the range in which the attacker was engaged, reducing the offensive use of artillery by forcing it back from the defender's lines and by rendering cavalry useless in its battlefield and pursuit roles (the roles which traditionally led to great disparity in losses). The ANV never had the advantage of a disproportionate force. Any mistakes by the Union usually kept the ANV from being crushed instead of vice-versa (see Antietam and Chancellorsville).

It would have been interesting to see how Napoleon and Lee would have done if they had switched places. Napoleon able to use better technology (railroads/telegraphs) and Lee w/ greater resources and able to maneuver on a wider front than the rather hemmed in NV area.

(in reply to sulla05)
Post #: 5
RE: Which Army is greater? The Grande Armee or the Army... - 4/4/2009 12:02:43 AM   
henri51


Posts: 1079
Joined: 1/16/2009
Status: offline
Napoleon and Lee were both outstanding geniuses on a par with any in History, and it is not possible to compare levels of genius. As for their armies, given the vastly different length of time periods to develop veterans, commanders and differences in opposition and technology, it is inevitable that the Grande Armee was superior to the AVN.And Lee DID have Napoleon's battles to study, whereas Napoleon had to invent many things.

I agree that the loss of Jackson was practically fatal to the AVN, whereas Napoleon's loss of a single marshall had only a small effect, which shows that although Lee did have some outstanding perhaps-genius-level commanders, he did not have the flexibility of Napoleon to move them around according to circumstances.

In sum, both armies performed much better than could have been normally expected, but comparing them depends much on which criteria one chooses to use.

Henri

(in reply to anarchyintheuk)
Post #: 6
RE: Which Army is greater? The Grande Armee or the Army... - 8/27/2009 10:07:29 PM   
Aurelian

 

Posts: 2108
Joined: 2/26/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: sulla05

If Lee had a staff and more competent commanders ( on par with Napoleon's ) he would have had smashing victories. Many times he was beside himself because his plans were not followed through and the Northern forces escaped destruction. If you look at the seven days battles you will find that Lee always believed that McClellan's army should have been easily destroyed. One book I was reading not to long ago compares the staffs between the Napoleonic wars and the Civil war. The civil war staffs were miniscule, totally outclassed by the French staffs.


Lee did not help himself by giving orders such as "Push those people off that hill, if practicable." Those last two words are not something Napoleon would of added.

(in reply to sulla05)
Post #: 7
RE: Which Army is greater? The Grande Armee or the Army... - 8/31/2009 2:04:56 AM   
Anthropoid


Posts: 2549
Joined: 2/22/2005
From: Secret Underground Lair
Status: offline
Sorry guys, I'm out of my league in terms of knowing the characters and the events, but I can't help but to make a kind of orthogonal comment here; which I don't intend to be a derailer, but just a different way of looking at things.

I'm reminded of a book I picked up a while back and read about half, van Creveldt I think was the guy "Fighting Power." Analysis of German and allied (but mostly American) militaries at the time of WWII. He goes to great lengths analyzing tables of training schedules, pounds of gear/food consumed, supply train logistics, training and war-fighting philosophy, numbers of soldiers engaged and relative casualty ratios, etc. all to make the point that the German army at that time was a "better" army.

Call me slack, but I was so unconvinced by this whole line of argument that I set the book down half way and likely will never pick it back up: if they were a "better" army, why did they lose the war?

Being a "great" army is one thing, but armies are nothing but instruments for states, generally nation-states. Armies ultimately must be judged on how well they succeed at accomplishing the tasks set to them in service to their states. By this measure, both the Confederate, and French Imperial armies must be judged failures, no?

ADDIT: and just a little "plug" for my personal fav military historical figure: The armies of Scipio Africanus . . . now THERE you have some clearly "fine" forces!? Not only did they "win" they utterly crushed the entire Carthaginian society, grinding it into the dust, and putatively sowing salt into the frickin' Earth!?!

The same could be said about the armies of Alexander (did they ever _really_ lose?), and Julius and Augustus Caesar, also years-long stretches of pretty much nothing but win, win, win. I suppose Charlemagne never really had a major setback either eh?

< Message edited by Anthropoid -- 8/31/2009 2:15:22 AM >


_____________________________

The x-ray is her siren song. My ship cannot resist her long. Nearer to my deadly goal. Until the black hole. Gains control...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkIIlkyZ328&feature=autoplay&list=AL94UKMTqg-9CocLGbd6tpbuQRxyF4FGNr&playnext=3

(in reply to Aurelian)
Post #: 8
RE: Which Army is greater? The Grande Armee or the Army... - 8/31/2009 3:50:22 AM   
evwalt

 

Posts: 644
Joined: 11/14/2007
Status: offline
Alexander you have a point with. Maybe Julius Caesar (though he did have setbacks he always won at the end).

Augustus army wasn't quite as lucky. Teutoburg Forest saw the German tribes utterly destroy 3 of Augustus's legions. Halted Roman expansion in Germany forever. (And we are way off topic here )

_____________________________

Russia in "Going Again II"
France in "Quest for Glory"
Prussia in "Invitational"

(in reply to Anthropoid)
Post #: 9
RE: Which Army is greater? The Grande Armee or the Army... - 8/31/2009 8:12:22 AM   
Mus

 

Posts: 1757
Joined: 11/13/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

Lee did not help himself by giving orders such as "Push those people off that hill, if practicable." Those last two words are not something Napoleon would of added.


But then Napoleon would have blamed Ney for destroying his Corps in so trying, and claimed the "if practicable" was implicit.



quote:

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid

Being a "great" army is one thing, but armies are nothing but instruments for states, generally nation-states. Armies ultimately must be judged on how well they succeed at accomplishing the tasks set to them in service to their states. By this measure, both the Confederate, and French Imperial armies must be judged failures, no?


I agree.

However, there is some kind of romantic element involved when the "tasks set to them in service to their states" are in fact impossible. Then people look at what was achieved in trying the impossible and the failed armies gain a great deal of stature in the process. Either in the long odds they *almost* overcame (French Grand Armee), or in doing so much while being so materially outclassed (ANV, Wehrmacht) by their opponents.

< Message edited by Mus -- 8/31/2009 8:22:45 AM >


_____________________________

Mindset, Tactics, Skill, Equipment
Diligentia, Vis, Celeritas

(in reply to Aurelian)
Post #: 10
RE: Which Army is greater? The Grande Armee or the Army... - 3/12/2010 5:27:05 AM   
Pistachio

 

Posts: 202
Joined: 12/15/2008
Status: offline
I'm inclined towards the same point of view as Anthropoid and Mus - it's an interesting comparison, but to me it's Confederate apples and French oranges. I'm a little out of my league on this as well, but it seems like we might as well be talking about the Huns and the Viet Cong. Comparisons are tricky things because there are so many apparent ones. And - well, not to be rude, but - "so what?" If you hop over to the War in the Pacific forum you can debate about whether Yamato was "better" than Iowa or vice-versa, but since they never squared off, what can you prove? German Type VIIs or U.S. Fleet Types? Thompsons or grease guns? A weapon, a platform, an army - I think each has to be taken in the context of what it was intended to do, what it actually did, and the circumstances that produced it. Just my 2 cents.

< Message edited by Pistachio -- 3/12/2010 5:31:09 AM >

(in reply to Mus)
Post #: 11
RE: Which Army is greater? The Grande Armee or the Army... - 7/3/2010 1:27:51 AM   
Darth Holliday

 

Posts: 16
Joined: 6/23/2010
Status: offline
I dont think you can make comparisons between the two..I dont think Lee had the disposition for the resources he commanded, he was to aggressive. He did not have to win to be victorious..He needed not to lose..The more time it took the Union the better it was for the Confederate States..It was world (England) recognition they seeked, not to beat the North which could not be done...Bonaparte had to defeat his enemy's to destroy their will to fight...My 2 cents !!

(in reply to Pistachio)
Post #: 12
RE: Which Army is greater? The Grande Armee or the Army... - 9/2/2010 7:53:19 PM   
bjmorgan


Posts: 2927
Joined: 8/12/2007
From: Mosquito Bite, Texas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid

Call me slack, but I was so unconvinced by this whole line of argument that I set the book down half way and likely will never pick it back up: if they were a "better" army, why did they lose the war?

OK, you're slack.

I am reminded of an "academic" conversation I had many years ago with a colleague of mine. He was arguing that Lee and Rommel could not be among the greatest generals, because they both ultimately were on the losing side. I could not get him to accept the fact that, while their countries both lost, they perfromed admirably give each individual engagement, at least for the most part. (Yes, both had their bad days.)

Who is the better coach, a pro coach whose team beats a 250 student high school team by 3 points in overtime, or the HS coach who was able to craft a game plan and motivate his players to be in the game against a far superior opponent? This was basically my point then and speaks to 'poid's remarks about the army being an instrument of the country and if the country loses then the army must also be a failure.

I disagree with 'poid in that I believe that the German army may have better army, but there is very little doubt who would win the war, at least after the US and USSR became fully mobilized. They were against tremendous odds, at least in terms of men (on the Russian front) and materiel (on the Western Front) and simply had to lose, at least militarily. Sure, they might have been able to have perfomed well enough for a less than disasterous political settlement of some type, but a real national victory was a very remote possibility. The same be said of The ANV. The South was destined to lose that war, unless the verious armies could win early and often. The ANV did, but the other Souther armies were universally inept most of the time.

It seems that Lee never had numerical parity with his opponent, and still won many major engagements. Some were because of his effective leadership, but some were because the ANV was simply a "better" army than the yankees on those occasions for any number of reasons. But, when you are low on food, ammunition, transport, etc., or your subordinate leaders fail you, you're in for a bad day. Napoleon frequently had parity with his enemies, but that was becasue his individual leadership molded the strategic situation to make this possible. His battles, on the other hand, were usually slugfests with few brilliant battlefield moves (indeed, he even blew a few chances - Borodino comes to mind), but his brilliance and got him to the point of near parity before the battle began. Lee's strategic options were much, much less available. Lee won battle by battlefield(operational) maneuvers on many occasions (Manasas I & II, Chancellorsville come to mind.) Had Lee used more effective battlefiled movement at Gettysburg, he might have won that one, too. Would that have made him a great general? After all, the South still would likely have lost the war.

The other thing is that one would have to define during what period? I think the GA might have been the best in 1805, but by 1812, it was pretty darn crummy. The ANV might not have been as good to begin with, but I don't think it sank quite so far. On average, who knows?

So, I believe it's impossible to really answer the question in any meaningful way, because the two armies faced such radically different situations. It's an intersting discussion, but individual opinions of what actually was are all flawed, mine included, because none of us know all we need to know to objectively make a judgement. Our individual biases take over and we argue what we think, not what we know.

All that said, Jonah's analysis is pretty good. But, exposing my bias, I'd have to say it's draw. If I HAD to choose, then I would have to go with the "optimal" GA over the "optimal" ANV. But not by much. At the end I would have to say the ANV, but not by much.

(in reply to Anthropoid)
Post #: 13
RE: Which Army is greater? The Grande Armee or the Army... - 9/29/2010 6:47:54 PM   
Anthropoid


Posts: 2549
Joined: 2/22/2005
From: Secret Underground Lair
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: bjmorgan

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid

Call me slack, but I was so unconvinced by this whole line of argument that I set the book down half way and likely will never pick it back up: if they were a "better" army, why did they lose the war?

OK, you're slack.

I am reminded of an "academic" conversation I had many years ago with a colleague of mine. He was arguing that Lee and Rommel could not be among the greatest generals, because they both ultimately were on the losing side. I could not get him to accept the fact that, while their countries both lost, they perfromed admirably give each individual engagement, at least for the most part. (Yes, both had their bad days.)

Who is the better coach, a pro coach whose team beats a 250 student high school team by 3 points in overtime, or the HS coach who was able to craft a game plan and motivate his players to be in the game against a far superior opponent? This was basically my point then and speaks to 'poid's remarks about the army being an instrument of the country and if the country loses then the army must also be a failure.

I disagree with 'poid in that I believe that the German army may have better army, but there is very little doubt who would win the war, at least after the US and USSR became fully mobilized. They were against tremendous odds, at least in terms of men (on the Russian front) and materiel (on the Western Front) and simply had to lose, at least militarily. Sure, they might have been able to have perfomed well enough for a less than disasterous political settlement of some type, but a real national victory was a very remote possibility. The same be said of The ANV. The South was destined to lose that war, unless the verious armies could win early and often. The ANV did, but the other Souther armies were universally inept most of the time.

It seems that Lee never had numerical parity with his opponent, and still won many major engagements. Some were because of his effective leadership, but some were because the ANV was simply a "better" army than the yankees on those occasions for any number of reasons. But, when you are low on food, ammunition, transport, etc., or your subordinate leaders fail you, you're in for a bad day. Napoleon frequently had parity with his enemies, but that was becasue his individual leadership molded the strategic situation to make this possible. His battles, on the other hand, were usually slugfests with few brilliant battlefield moves (indeed, he even blew a few chances - Borodino comes to mind), but his brilliance and got him to the point of near parity before the battle began. Lee's strategic options were much, much less available. Lee won battle by battlefield(operational) maneuvers on many occasions (Manasas I & II, Chancellorsville come to mind.) Had Lee used more effective battlefiled movement at Gettysburg, he might have won that one, too. Would that have made him a great general? After all, the South still would likely have lost the war.

The other thing is that one would have to define during what period? I think the GA might have been the best in 1805, but by 1812, it was pretty darn crummy. The ANV might not have been as good to begin with, but I don't think it sank quite so far. On average, who knows?

So, I believe it's impossible to really answer the question in any meaningful way, because the two armies faced such radically different situations. It's an intersting discussion, but individual opinions of what actually was are all flawed, mine included, because none of us know all we need to know to objectively make a judgement. Our individual biases take over and we argue what we think, not what we know.

All that said, Jonah's analysis is pretty good. But, exposing my bias, I'd have to say it's draw. If I HAD to choose, then I would have to go with the "optimal" GA over the "optimal" ANV. But not by much. At the end I would have to say the ANV, but not by much.



The Viet Cong "beat" the US (with a little help from some other communists entities ), despite being the "High School" small southeast Asian team against the "pro" U.S. team. If you wanted to argue that the Viet Cong were greater than the Confederates, I could go along with that: they were the underdogs, they could not possibly have fought the enemy on his terms and won either tactical or strategic victories. Nonetheless, at both the level of the individual solder, the small and medium sized field unit, and at the political level, the "Viet Cong" did what it took to win. The Confederates lost, so they obviously did not do what it took to win.

Viet Cong greater than Confederates or Imperial French. I con't care how fancy, elegant, or inspired a commander's moves are on the battlefield. If at the end of the day that was nothing but a waste of his time, and the lives of his people, "greatness" simply doesn't apply. Lee lost. He surrendered. In the grand scheme of history, all those brillant engagments did not matter. Lee a highly capable battlefield commander? Sure. But that is not the same thing as being a "Great Army" or a even a Great Leader. There are simply too many examples of Armies, nations, and Leaders who did not lose in the long scheme of things to consider anyone who did to be great. Doesn't mean every general who was on the winning side was great, or that every nation who won ws great, but lets not base "greatness" on our own cultural nostalgia.

_____________________________

The x-ray is her siren song. My ship cannot resist her long. Nearer to my deadly goal. Until the black hole. Gains control...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkIIlkyZ328&feature=autoplay&list=AL94UKMTqg-9CocLGbd6tpbuQRxyF4FGNr&playnext=3

(in reply to bjmorgan)
Post #: 14
RE: Which Army is greater? The Grande Armee or the Army... - 10/1/2010 9:57:55 PM   
06 Maestro


Posts: 3982
Joined: 10/12/2005
From: Nevada, USA
Status: offline
To answer the OP question; I think it is clear that the Grand Army was in another league than R.E. Lees' army. Number, scope and decisiveness of the G.A.'s battles/campaigns far out weighed that of the Army of Northern Virginia. Another little factor is that in the G.A.'s situation, the head of state was responsible for its deployment, organization and leadership. I also view General Lee as one of the greatest commanders and leaders of all time. He had a long history before the ACW. Had he stayed with the Union-he would have been the senior commander of the North. I suspect the war would have been much shorter if R.E. Lee had accepted the Union offer.

I consider it rather strange that anyone would consider the VC "great" in any way. They did not win the war-they were nearly completely destroyed in the Tet Offensive. Their primary purpose was to terrorize their own people into cooperation-by any level of brutality required. Great??-I don't think so. The NVA won the war-but only because the ARVN had to withdraw from what were the obvious approach routes (to Saigon) by the NVA due to traitorous scum in the US pulling the rug out from underneath them. It is a modern myth that N. Vietnam defeated U.S. forces-they overcame our government opposition through a 5th column of sorts. The U.S. was defeated in the news rooms and do gooder communists' star rooms-not on the battlefield. The idea that the VC defeated the U.S. military in anyway is very wrong. Hell, even the Navy could beat the VC. The NVA was quite good, and its commanders used what they had in an effective way. With the military and government working in unison-they won the war. The ANV did not win by itself.

When we judge commanders of the past, let's keep in mind that they generally are responsible for dealing with a situation not of their own making-unlike in a game.

The idea of a loser not being great also strikes me as a bit strange. Hannibal comes to mind. I think he is regarded as one of the greatest commanders of history-yet he lost. Not only did he loose, but was on the run for decades before being cornered and committing suicide. An important part of greatness is just how well someone did given the level of opposition (or difficulty). Being on the favored side regarding resources does not preclude a commander from attaining a label of greatness, but it may may it more difficult to recognize sometimes.

Was the German Army in WW1 or 2 a "great army"? Gee, let me think about that-why yes, I would say those were great armies. They lost also.

You can win and be great, but you can also loose and be great.

< Message edited by 06 Maestro -- 10/1/2010 10:02:13 PM >


_____________________________

Banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies.

Thomas Jefferson


(in reply to Anthropoid)
Post #: 15
RE: Which Army is greater? The Grande Armee or the Army... - 10/1/2010 10:24:45 PM   
Anthropoid


Posts: 2549
Joined: 2/22/2005
From: Secret Underground Lair
Status: offline
I thought I might get some discussion going with that.

Mostly I just wanted to prod you military guys a bit I know all about how the U.S. won almost every tactical aspect of the War, and how it was effectively the political home-front / media / counterculture that led to "defeat." If you can even call it "defeat" for the U.S.

Still, the U.S. was not in Indochina any longer in 1976. The "enemy" were. No question to me that the "good guys" got the short end of the stick in that war, i.e., I wouldn't argue against the brutality or unscrupulousness or lack of honor or whatever of the VC/NVA, nor the post-war abuses against pro-ARVN.

But the fact remains: the commies "won." Maybe they barely survived and were decimated in numbers, but they certainly didn't lose the strategic goal of outlasting the U.S. And I don't think it was mere accident that they played the diplomatic, political, and global mass media game in the way that they did either.

Gotta run right now . . .

_____________________________

The x-ray is her siren song. My ship cannot resist her long. Nearer to my deadly goal. Until the black hole. Gains control...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkIIlkyZ328&feature=autoplay&list=AL94UKMTqg-9CocLGbd6tpbuQRxyF4FGNr&playnext=3

(in reply to 06 Maestro)
Post #: 16
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Napoleonics] >> Crown of Glory: Emperor's Edition >> Napoleonic History >> Which Army is greater? The Grande Armee or the Army of Northern Virginia? I also posted this on FoF. Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.107