Lee vs Napoleon

[millerpsc]

Has anyone watched Deadliest Warriors on Spike TV? If not then I'll explain. On deadliest warrior, they pit the greatest warriors in history against eachother using a computer software program. Well the show got me thinking, how would Lee fair against Napoleon? What do ya'll think? Also who would you like to see battle eachother?

 

[Evan]

I guess it would be interesting... not sure though if I'd put Napoleon against Lee.

 

[millerpsc]

Well Napolaon was Lee's role model, Lee learned alot of his tactics from him so i'd like to see how they would match up.
Who would you pit against each other?

 

[tmh10]

I would say Lee in a no contest, esp if they had to use the weapons of their respective times.

 

[Nytram01]

Which Napoleon are we talking about? The young, ambitious Napoleon who smashed a large Army at Austerlitz and conquered half of Europe or the old, ill Napoleon who stupidly marched on Moscow while ignoring the Peninsula War and suffered a drubbing at Waterloo? If the first then I'd go for Napoleon, if the second then Lee.

 

[Mark F. Jenkins]

I would say Lee in a no contest, esp if they had to use the weapons of their respective times.

This is one of the complaints I have about that program... it essentially treats a battle between generals like a Homeric contest between the two "chief warriors," as if Lee would jump into the rifle-pits with an Enfield. Well, I suppose he might have, if his troops hadn't more sense than he did... 'Lee to the rear!' But I wonder how much of that was for show. Lee was unquestionably a master at motivating his troops; Napoleon was another one of those. A real comparison between the two men's abilities would have to be in terms of their abilities to plan, manage large bodies of troops, and make their soldiers want to fight to the death for them; but that's not what "Deadliest Warrior" concentrates on.

 

[millerpsc]

Lets put Lee and his army just before Chancellorsville when he still had Jackson. Napolaon just before Austerlitz, each army sporting rifled muskets and artillery.

 

[millerpsc]

This is one of the complaints I have about that program... it essentially treats a battle between generals like a Homeric contest between the two "chief warriors," as if Lee would jump into the rifle-pits with an Enfield. Well, I suppose he might have, if his troops hadn't more sense than he did... 'Lee to the rear!' But I wonder how much of that was for show. Lee was unquestionably a master at motivating his troops; Napoleon was another one of those. A real comparison between the two men's abilities would have to be in terms of their abilities to plan, manage large bodies of troops, and make their soldiers want to fight to the death for them; but that's not what "Deadliest Warrior" concentrates on.

But deadliest warrior just gave me the idea of putting to commanders and their armies against each other. not commanders fighting themselves

 

[KeyserSoze]

A possibility that was considered and dismissed by Lincoln almost 30 years before the rebellion:

"Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant, to step the Ocean, and crush us at a blow? Never!--All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest; with a Buonaparte for a commander, could not by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a thousand years."

 

[millerpsc]

During Napoleon's prime i doubt if we could have stopped him if he'd had wanted to "take a drink from the ohio". Hell we didnt even have a true army at the time.

 

[davepi2]

if I remember right they had hannibal over Alexander. Was Hannibal even an equal to Scipio let alone Alexander? Now lets's see if that creates a real debate.

 

[OpnCoronet]

Lee's generalship was napoleonic, in that both men fought battles of 'annihilation', but in the CW such battles were, effectively, impossible.
To me the deciding factor between the two, would be that, IMO Napoleon was better at making war by the map, on a contenent wide scale. The more scope, in time and distance involved, the more Napoleon would have the advantage.

 

[Conservator]

Well if we are picking Generals of War, how about Lee verses Patton.

 

[NedBaldwin]

Lets put Lee and his army just before Chancellorsville when he still had Jackson. Napolaon just before Austerlitz, each army sporting rifled muskets and artillery.

I think Napoleon would crush Lee.

 

[Republican Blues]

I think Lee liked pie, but Napoleon prefered fancier pastries

 

[SouthernRebel772]

I have actually read the article/study of this exact same topic on the Spike T.V. Deadliest Warrior website. Interesting read, and the ending is fitting in my opinion.

I would vote with Lee for a battle, Napoleon probably has an advantage in a campaign.

 

[tmh10]

In my opinion, Lee would take Napoleon. Esp if Lee had Jackson,Longstreet, A. P. Hill, and Stuart. Lee would form a plan of battle but the rest of his Generals would adapt it to the situation. Im not so sure Napoleon's strategy was so flexable.

 

[OpnCoronet]

Rapid dispersion(maneuvering) and rapid concentration(for battle); flexibility the main ingredient of Napoleion's superiority on the battle field.
Napoleion was the master, Lee, the student.

 

[Mark F. Jenkins]

Seems to me that, in Lee's place, Napoleon would have ended up as President of the United States, and then a little later, President-for-Life... taking his rise from artillery captain to Emperor of the French as a model.

 

[TerryB]

I would have to say chance factors--dumb luck--would probably make the difference if these two went up against each other with rough parity in men, weapons and supplies.