Lee vs Napoleon

[e.r.fox]

Very good thread!!!

 

[gary]

Napoleon had a better grasp of strategy than Lee. If only Le Canard hadn't waddled at Wavre.

 

[Mdiesel]

Give Napoleon a severe case of hemorrhoidal pain ala Waterloo & I'll take Bobby Lee every time

err... but give Lee a dose of the Tennessee 'quick step' & Ole Bonaparte might just have an edge...

 

[millerpsc]

they were both masters of deception, Lee had one definite thing over Napoleon, he was loved by his troops almost to the point of worship. I think it'll also depend on the ground being fought on. But lets say the battle was fought in lets say... china, neither could boast home field advantage. I reckon all i could really predict is that it would be a bloody, BLOODY battle! I think if it was fought only as a battle it would end up something like antietam but with probably twice the casualties.

 

[OpnCoronet]

After Napoleon's escape from Elba, the French gov't sent troops to arrest him, but all forces sent against him melted away or deserted en masse to his standard. I think Napoleon had quite a hold on the affections and loyalty of his men.

 

[johan_steele]

Napoleon had the "Old Guard" & the "New Guard" men who were willing to die for him. Lee never had troops of such dedication, motivation or discipline.

Napoleon campaigned across Europe winning more often than not. Lee was never much more than 100 miles from his Capital. So saying Lee was better at the manuver is so much hogwash. Napoleon commanded armies of considerably larger number w/ the attendent problem w/ logistics that creates. Napolean certainly had a better grasp on the logistical reality of war than Lee.

Napoleon vs Lee... no contest at all. Frankly, I would put Lee well behind Wellington if there was a need to pick a General from history to take Napolean down.

Many a General of the Continent fully believed the ACW was fought by two amatuer armies. Some revised that opinion when they studied the campaigns a bit. That said there came a cold realization that those amatuer armies were as tough as any in Europe. US soldiers have gained a reputation as tough and reselient no matter how poorly led; but when well led...

 

[ironbmike]

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.

Flexibility was Napoleon's strength. He would mop the floor with the ANV.

 

[ironbmike]

they were both masters of deception, Lee had one definite thing over Napoleon, he was loved by his troops almost to the point of worship. I think it'll also depend on the ground being fought on. But lets say the battle was fought in lets say... china, neither could boast home field advantage. I reckon all i could really predict is that it would be a bloody, BLOODY battle! I think if it was fought only as a battle it would end up something like antietam but with probably twice the casualties.

Confederate soldiers deserted quite a bit under Lee. And Napoleon's aura was much, much greater than Lee could ever achieve.

 

[millerpsc]

Confederate soldiers deserted quite a bit under Lee. And Napoleon's aura was much, much greater than Lee could ever achieve.

Lee's troops deserted because of hunger. I reckon kind of like when napoleon invaded russia with 500,000 men and returned with only 25,000, mostly from starvation and desertion

 

[CW3O]

Napoleon had the "Old Guard" & the "New Guard" men who were willing to die for him. Lee never had troops of such dedication, motivation or discipline.

Napoleon campaigned across Europe winning more often than not. Lee was never much more than 100 miles from his Capital. So saying Lee was better at the manuver is so much hogwash. Napoleon commanded armies of considerably larger number w/ the attendent problem w/ logistics that creates. Napolean certainly had a better grasp on the logistical reality of war than Lee.

Napoleon vs Lee... no contest at all. Frankly, I would put Lee well behind Wellington if there was a need to pick a General from history to take Napolean down.

Many a General of the Continent fully believed the ACW was fought by two amatuer armies. Some revised that opinion when they studied the campaigns a bit. That said there came a cold realization that those amatuer armies were as tough as any in Europe. US soldiers have gained a reputation as tough and reselient no matter how poorly led; but when well led...

Tend to agree.
Both were remarkable military commanders, but the truth is that Napoleon, went on the offensive and conquered most of Europe. before ultimatley being defeated. Lee's offenses into enemy territroy were both failures. no succes at all on the offensive vs the conquest of most of a continent.

Both ultimatley lost the defensive portion of their repective wars so thats a wash.

One big advantage to Napoleon equals victory in this mythical battle.

 

[johan_steele]

Tend to agree.
Both were remarkable military commanders, but the truth is that Napoleon, went on the offensive and conquered most of Europe. before ultimatley being defeated. Lee's offenses into enemy territroy were both failures. no succes at all on the offensive vs the conquest of most of a continent.

Both ultimatley lost the defensive portion of their repective wars so thats a wash.

One big advantage to Napoleon equals victory in this mythical battle.

I was talking w/ a fella this afternoon while I was working an install. His comment aout Lee vs Napoleon was notable: "It only took the US to take down Lee; it took all of Europe to bring Napoleon down."

 

[CW3O]

I was talking w/ a fella this afternoon while I was working an install. His comment aout Lee vs Napoleon was notable: "It only took the US to take down Lee; it took all of Europe to bring Napoleon down."

This also brings to the forefront that Lee, particularly in comparison to Napoleon, was a local, Army Commander who essentially fought his entire war in very small geographic area, one in which he was intimately familar. Napoleon fought war on a continental scale.

Once again, Lee was a one dimensional, defensive and counterattacking genius, Napoleon earned success on both the offensive and defensive and on a much larger scale then Lee. No contest

 

[1SGDan]

Lee never knew war on the scale of Napoleon. A difficult comparison to make.

 

[millerpsc]

if Lee had the subordinates that Napoleon had he may have done better. Jackson and Longstreet complimented eachother like no other i've ever read about, under there corps commands Lee was almost invinceable. I wonder how Lee would have faired in combat against Napoleon then, not after Jackson's death. Even jackson haters have to admit that the ANV performed the best BEFORE jackson's death. Antietam was Lee's worst nightmare because of his orders being intercepted, he had to assemble his army quickly so he had to stay in antietam. I really believe antietam shows Lee's genius more than any other battle. True, McClellan didn't use all his troops but Lee still fought against higher odds. Gettysburg was Lee's waterloo, Napoleon and Lee both overestimated there troops. The biggest factor for me is that Lee knew when to withdraw where as Napoleon was the type that was all or nothing. If Lee was to get Napoleon into a situation where Lee was in a position similar to Cold harbor then Napoleon would batter his army to death on Lee's defenses

 

[millerpsc]

So if my post is a little confusing, but i've been up for over 20 hours

 

[TerryB]

I was playing chess with friends at the American Legion the other day and had a Napoleon experience. A big build up in front of my castled king was threatening mate and I couldn't see any way to stop it. Then, for some reason I thought of Austerlitz and how Napoleon vacated the Pratzen in order to induce the Allies to attack. I must've thought for at least five minutes (no clock to punch). Finally, I decided to move my queen out of the build-up and risk losing a piece in order to save my king. I put her somewhere that seemed to threaten to open up a second front. I was hoping he'd go for one of the pieces in the build-up, setting off an exchange. My opponent didn't bite, but he did make a major mistake that cost him his queen and eventually the game. After reading an online account of Austerlitz, it amazed me how much luck was involved, not just Napoleon's skill. It was a big gamble that paid off (for both of us).

 

[millerpsc]

I think every battle and campaign relies alot on luck or chance, whichever one you believe in.

 

[FrazierC]

Spoiler Alert; don't read if you haven't seen the episode and want to:
All I've gotta say is, if Washington beat Napolean, Lee can beat Napolean.

 

[millerpsc]

Yeah that episode was ****, people like to give ALL the credit to Washington when the main credit should be given to Morgan, Marion and the Gamecock. If it wasnt for Francis Marion (the Swampfox) then the British would have been more powerful when moving into the south carolina upstate. The Gamecock kept the pressure on the British supply lines while their army was trying to destroy Gen. Green and Gen Morgan. Without Morgan's victory at cowpens then there would have been no Kings Mountain, which forced Cornwallis to move north which we all know ended at Yorktown.

 

[trice]

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.

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.

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.

Personal opinion:

If you put Napoleon and La Grande Armee up against Lee and the Army of Northern Virginia, Napoleon wins hands-down. It will not even be close.

Robert E. Lee was an excellent officer, a strong-willed and successful combat commander. He would have been good enough to find a place among the 26 men Napoleon gave Marshal's batons; IMHO, he would have been in the top half of that group, as would Grant.

Davout, Soult, and Massena are regarded as the top three in the Marshalate (Davout was far and away the best of the three, and the only one who's military ability Napoleon seemed wary and jealous of). Robert E. Lee was not that good.

Lannes was probably fourth best, and might have been higher if he had lived past 1809. I think he was better than Robert E. Lee.

Berthier is hard to judge. He was a tremendous chief-of-staff for Napoleon who seems over-burdened by the Emperor, although his early career shows bravely; perhaps he would have been better out from under Napoleon's shadow. He did well as an independent officer, but never had much 0f an opportunity to shine once Napoleon arrived.

St. Cyr, Suchet and Marmont were very talented. Robert E. Lee would have had to work hard to get ahead of them (so would Grant).

Next comes a bunch of people I think Lee (and Grant) could/would have been better than: Augereau, Grouchy, Lefebvre, McDonald, Mortier, Ney(up to 1812), Oudinot, Poniatowski, and Victor.

I do think Lee (and Grant) would have been solidly better than Bernadotte, Brune, Jourdan, Moncey, Perignon, and Serurier.

That leaves the specialized Cavalry Marshals: the incomparable Murat, followed by Bessieres and Kellerman. Lee showed nothing spectacular as a cavalry officer, so it is impossible to even compare him to those. These three are the men people like J. E. B. Stuart, Nathan Bedford Forrest and Wade Hampton would have been working under -- and having a tough time advancing with the horde of good cavalry officers Napoleon had. Even the people who mocked Murat or hated Murat with a passion (like Bessieres and Kellerman, for example) acknowledged he was the best combat cavalry commander in Europe.

All that comes down to this: Napoleon was better than anyone in the Marshalate (with the possible exception of Davout). At least three and maybe seven of the Marshals were probably better than Lee. Another seven or eight Marshals were in a class with Lee, although he was probably better than a few of those. Lee's best Corps commanders, Longstreet and Jackson, would have been behind Lee in the Marshalate, but Jackson and Longstreet would have been middle of the pack in that group. Lee's best cavalry commanders, Stuart and Hampton, were not as good as Napoleon's top men.

On anything like an even playing field, Napoleon's army wins easily.

Tim