"Who was the worst?" Topic

In your opinion, who was the worst Armie on Nap Era?.

I'm speaking about performance in the field of glory, moral, motivation, etc.
No problem if the Armie is big, little or had no so good weapons.
A general idea.

My vote is for the Neapolitanian and Bavarian Armies.

Amicalement
Armand

Bavarian? Why?

Spanish

I have no idea why Bavaria deserves to be on the list. Adequate troops, and solid if well commanded.

I'd vote for Naples and Spain, but would toss an honorable mention to my favorite Napoleonic army – Westphalia. Its pursuit of the Brunswickers in 1809 looks like an episode of the Keystone Cops.

Naples without doubt…..why Bavaria? they were a very solid army…..

Ottoman?

French. They lost.

French. They lost.
>>
We have a winner Ladies and Gents!

Bob

Naples, hands down.

"Red uniforms; white uniforms…they run just the same."

Well, I choose Bavaria because of their bad performance against the Tyrolean people (always defeated by a mob).
When they participated on the Russian campaing suffered a lot for very bad supplies, nule pre-winter arrangements (wile Swiss and french troops work to be ready on winter the Bavarians did nothing and then payed the consecuencies).
When they chages sides tried to stop Nap an suffered again a defeated.
When they invaded france they performed no so good.
So, were did the Bavarians come to exit?.
At least, the Otomans win some battles against the Russians and stop the French Army at Acre, with or without help of the British).
But it's only my modest opinion.

Amicalement
Armand

The Bavarians kicked the Austrians butt in the 1809 campaign up through Eckmuhl. They seemed to perform very well. Fighting an insurgency is an entirely different matter.

I find such questions not very usefull, the Spanish did quite well against the French and defeated them for example at Baylen – a big blow on French morale.

Bongolesians did quite well, considering the low level and quality of resources available to them at the time, and the appalling leadership of their field commanders.

"Well, I choose Bavaria because of their bad performance against the Tyrolean people (always defeated by a mob)."

Shouldn't judge an army by its performance against insurgents in mountainous terrain – just look at Afghanistan today!

I am Danish so my vote is the British army, a bunch of murders, arsonists and thieves.

They deliberately targeted civilian population areas with incendiary bombs at the siege of Copenhagen in 1807 and stole our fleet and what they couldn't get their hands on they destroyed.

Gimme a break

Permission granted.

Yeah, we do that a lot. The French weren't too impressed with Mers-el-Kibir either.

sorry

"I am Danish so my vote is the British army, a bunch of murders, arsonists and thieves"

Bit of revenge for the activity of a bunch of murders, arsonists and thieves in 865!

Tally Ho!

Actually I would vote for the British Army as well, they did well under competent leadership but remember how many of the vaunted Penninsular troops were captured at Buenos Aires and were beaten by militia at New Orleans…

Bad Army with several good commanders to pull them out of the fire.

….look at the units involved at New Orleans and Buenos Aries and they were not many Peninsular vets present…they were a bit of a "B" team.. plus Buenos Aries takes place in 1807 is it?…not much chance of peninsular vets there…to be honest, if you are seriously suggesting that the British Napoleonic army was "worse" than the Spainish, Neapolitan, Danish, Swedish, Uncle Tom-cobbley and all..then you are off your chump.

The french who fought Richard Sharp. They never won and allways ran away after a couple of them had their backpacks tapped with the side of a sword.

Naples without a doubt. At one point they sent reenforcments to Spain. More troops deserted in route than made it there. Over 50% casualties just marching!

I'd say the British Army was a good army frequently hampered by lousy commanders – fortunately we did find at least one good one.

Worst army? The OFM stole my immediate thought when I saw the title of the thread. :)

Ok my grumbling about the British (who I do consider one of the better armies) aside why one would consider the French army bad it took a coalition of Great powers to take down France and its army.
Spain improved under British supervision.
The French seems to have used Neapolitan troops constantly so they mustn't been that bad.

One could argue that the Swedish army could be bad, unable to defeat Russia in 1808, let the Prussian and Russian do their fighting for them in 1813 and barely able to defeat the Norwegians in 1814.

Saying the French was facetious, but then taking the long view they did end up occupied and with their government deposed.

The French used Italians because they were available, Napoleon wasn't fussy about where he got his cannon-fodder from.

The Swedes had the handicap of being led by someone who was mad in 1808. Letting others do the fighting is a sign of a canny leader. And they did beat the Norwegians.

So far as I'm aware they did OK in the fighting they did do in 1813.

Ottomans on the whole were pretty poor.

The 1/43rd and the 3/95th (Kempt's Brigade, Light Division, at Vittoria), and the 1/7th Royal Fusiliers (part of the fusilier brigade at Albuera) were engaged at New Orleans, as were the 1/4th (also at Vittoria) and the 85th (veterans of Fuentes, and the campaign in France). I wouldn't characterize them as the "B" team.

Rick

All the above units were largely kept in reserve and the second line and took little part in the battle, the only veteran unit that was heavily engaged was the ubquitious 95th, and the bulk of the casualties in the battle were taken by the 44th and the 93rd (the latter being fresh from 9 years garrison duty in Africa). Indeed, not exactly the B team, more like the C team.

Mysore.

Couldn't win the field or when defending walled cities.

It depends in what it's your idea of "worst" and "best". The Neapolitans, for example. They have been quoted several times. But what motivation they had to fight in the wars of a foreign power that conscripted them forcibly? Naturally they were bad… but I defy anyone to make a good army of unmotivated, underpayed and underfeed peasants that want not to fight in some stupid war in the interests of some far away so called emperor.

I seem to recall a thread on here earlier this year where the poor reputation of the Neapolitans was shown to have been based on one unit in Spain, which had been amalgamated and reorganised against its wishes (with a generous splash of Freemason rivalry between the officers and NCOs of the two regiments thrown in for good measure).

Florida Tony, even if these veterans were directly involved, that they were defeated in a frontal assault against a well fortified position wouldn't necessarily make them bad troops!

The British troops who atack Buenos Aires at 1807 were not second rate.

The Regiments were:
The 38º Coldstream, the 5º, the 36º, the 87º and 88º, the 95th Rifles (with Craufurd), the 45º, the 9º Light Dragoons (3 squadrons), the 11º Dragoons (3 squadrons), 1 cannon of 3" and four of 6", marines (1 batallion).
There were not "professional" troops in Buenos Aires, only militia and voluntaires. The "Patricios" for example were voluntaires from the up classes.
The old spanish troops were "on parole" before the invation of 1806 by Beresford and refused to fight.
Half of that spanish troops were embarqued and send to Englad as prisioners at 1806 and then they were desembarqued on Spain were they fight the french as the "Voluntarios de la Muerte" unit.

Amicalement
Armand

I think the Qin Chinese made the worst Napoleonic Army as they are from the wrong era and the wrong continent.

Chouan,

That's exactly my point. Nothing in my post should be constued to imply I believe the British sent anything other than some of their best troops. They didn't succeed both for the reason you mention, as well as a very difficult logistics chain.

Rick

I don't think anyone can say that the quality of British Soldiery is Low at any point during the Napoleonic era – but the varying quality of Generalship beggars belief

The British troops sent to the low countries duing the 1790's were poorly rated by their allies. Not so much for their battle performance but for their poor discipline in camp/billets, fondness for drink, uncaring officers.

Also surprised to see the Bavarians getting a mention, always seemed like quite a tidy proffesional little army.

I'd say the worst army would probably be the Neopolitans, though this probably only stems from the two levied regiments sent to spain and the 1815 campiagn.

The Prussians after 1808 certainly had the worst looking army (uniforms).. just plain and dull.

Regarding Buenos Aries.
By all accounts the regiments involved would form some of the best in the British army.

The failure of the battle stems mainly from the incompetence of the leaders and poor communication between the attacking columns. The actual units fought well.

The only unit I have seen cited as behaving less than nobley were the 38th who were witnessed losing a lot of men while trying to steal some split bags of coins.

the 45th fought well, its left wing still defying the spaniards and flying its flag after capturing the Residencia. Col Guard was captured with the Grenadier company trying to link up with Crauford who I THINK was with a wing of the 88th and besieged in another building.

Westphalians get my vote after reading Sam Mustapha's article.

Bavarians are one of my favoured armies.

The Neapolitans actually fought quite well in1815; their main problem in that campaign was the quality of the generals, in particular the complete strategic ineptitude of the King.

My worst army would have to be the Bourbon army of the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies; they were magnificently hopeless (on most occasions, anyway).

I think the Westphalians are not an accurate idea of what constitutes a poor army at all. Yes, they were a fairly poor army but the Westphalians were a created state of territories that were not happy with the transformation into this new kingdom, especially since it was created by the French, for a French leader…

Many of the men in the army were actually very good soldiers, however, lack of motivation to connect with the desires and objectives set by France made them care less about following or even joining up in the first place. Thus this lack of motivation is the number one factor that went against the Westphalians doing well in battle, not the quality of the men.

Motivation (loyalty) is a very powerful mechanism for creating a good, solid soldier let alone army. Without it you might as well make sure you have a big brother very close by with a huge army to protect you if things go bad…

Shane

Many of the men in the army were actually very good soldiers, however, lack of motivation to connect with the desires and objectives set by France made them care less about following or even joining up in the first place. Thus this lack of motivation is the number one factor that went against the Westphalians doing well in battle, not the quality of the men.

Surely you have just outlined what made them a poor army! A poor army is just that – one that performs poorly. It is very rarely the fault of the ordinary soldiers or a lack of bravery, martial spirit etc in the citizens of said country. If the question had been which country had the worst/most cowardly men then your point might be valid, but in any tally of the worst army the Westphalians must be in with a shout.

Just as an aside Shane many of things you quote in mitigation of the Westphalians could be equally said about the Spanish which was your choice of worst army. Lack of confidence in officers, poor equipement, poor logisitics all contributed to the poor showing of the Spanish. When well lead they could and did aquit themselves well giving the french a few frights along the way.

Surely the British! It took them six years to push a second tier French-Allied army out of Spain despite having the entire native population on their side, and then they can barely win one battle in Belgium in 1815 against a hastily thrown together French army, which was being attacked in the rear by the Prussians!!

Heh! Reality is what you make of it.

Like I said….off your chump

Mr Edwulf, you are right about the fault of coordination in the British columns when they tried to take Buenos Aires at 1807.

Most of the drawings of that Era show a big population all over each building fighting against the british infantry which cannot send to them a single shoot.

It was not the true. The buildings in that Era were mostly poor huts and only in the center of the city there were buildings of more than one floor. The problem was that the militia and civilians armed with wathever they had, could fought each column, defeat them and run to the other.
There were not enough fighers to cover the six point of penetration the british made. I had to said that mostly of the brisih infantry had fought very well spending in many cases all their ammo.
It was also a recognition to the bravery of the civil population which defeated them.
About "Black Bob" Craufurd, he fought with the 95th and arrived to the most nearly point to the city center, the Monasterio (church)de Nuestra Señora… etc were he resist for four hours and tried three times to broke at the front of their men at bayonnet charges. He only surrender when Witerlock send him the order.
In the same Monasterio are some weapons and the flags of that brave soldiers.
There also the holds of the bullets of the sustain fire against the building.

Interest to take note that many historians (as myself) opinion is that that day began the disgracefull of Argentina.
If we accepted the British Administration instead of fight their troops, we would be more similar to Canada, Australia or New Zealand, and not something like Bolivia, Paraguay or Venezuela.
A real pitty.

Amicalement
Armand

I have seen an old map of Buenos Aries, which outlined the main directions of attack for the British columns. Even then I thought be a very difficult task to try and fight your way through such a maze of roads and ally ways against people who know their way around it. It is avery interesting escapade, most of the soldiers taken prisoner were well treated I believe aswell. And considering Whitelockes abilties i'm surprised the basic soldiers were able to fight fo so long anway. I beleive We fudged up Bergan Op Zoom in much the same way.

While it would have been nice to add Agentina to the empire as a commonwealth nation (That would mean Tevez and Messi would be able to claim uk nationality and improve the England squad..) I can't imagine the USA, Spain, Portugal or the other Latin nations being to happy about it. Let alone the people of Argentina at the time. But I'd defer to your superior knowledge in that regard. Who knows, it worked with Gibralter eh.

My vote would be for the exceptionally short lived Papal army which was formed to defend Rome during Bonaparte's first Italian Campaign.
AFAIK the Bavarians were one of the better Rheinbund armies. They eventually did retake the Tyrol. According to Gill, any major failures during the Tyrolean campaign can as much be attibuted to Lefebvre's mediocre command as to the fighting quality of the troops.

And the British were one of, if not the best army of the period. The French were exceptionally good also, especially early on, but on a battalion v battalion basis the Poms pretty much always came off best.

Mr Edwulf sorry for not read your post early.

The British Army had managed very well when they took Montevideo City.
It WAS a really fortresses with huge walls, bastions, etc.
They took Montevideo on the old stile as they did in many other places.

But the problem with Buenos Aires was that there were not a single wall. Not a breach. Not cannons, not even a trench.

It was a big "aldea" with "ranchos" so, I'm sure that these was the first time that the british veterans had to managed to take a poblation like that.

The other component of that drama was that we had fought against the other british invation only a year ago and in that ocation the spanish troops surrender quickly and we had the "Union Jack" flyng in our Goberment House for some month.

So, we knew very well what we can wait from a new british invation and really, at that era, the inhabitants from these part of the world didn't like to be nor english nor spanish, nor french (I said french because our heroe commander in both invations WAS a french, Santiago de Liniers, a truly bonapartist).
I can asure you that in 1806/07 there were not another single SouthAmerican country who like to be "independent". Even the Bolivarians which at that time only became to "proclamations".

As a country wild with a permanent war against very brave (and thousands) of Indians, without any support from Spain and with heavy taxes, we really do not want to support any extranger flag.

This unique cirscumstances were which desbalance the posibilities of the british troops which fight with their usually galantry, but the "moral" decisión from the inhabitans were overwelming.
Of course, the tactic of General Whiterlock was very bad.

About the soldiers prisioners, I had to said that many of them which were send to our North Provinces, decided to stay here. They all went on time to be big farmers and arrived to a fortune. That's the explication why from that time to the 2WW all our economic theaties, our diplomacy and our education became from british blood.
If you look to the most predominent owners of the cattle in Argentina, moslty are from British ascendence.
The upper classes always put a british personal teacher to their sons (only the low classes went to school). English was the second idiom here up today.

And about who can protest or acted against we, to be part of the Commonwelth, there were NON.
USA was very far away and they loved to had another english speaking country in the far South America.
Spain was beating all the way from 1810 up to Perú by Argentine forces.
Portugal really atemp twice. One as Portugal Empire and another as Brazilians. Both had no progress and they lost the Cisplatina Province.

I had to said too that our national heroe, José de San Martín had wrote many times to the British Regent at that era to take control of Argentina under a prince of that house.

But unfortunally for us, they didn't accepted it and prefer to support Simon Bolivar.

Well my friend, hope to answer all your comments now.
Thank you for your interest.

Amicalement
Armand

who are the bongolesians????????