"Who's more obsessed Waterloo or Gettysburg devotees " Topic

(When he (Soult) did so, he was roundly beaten.)

It was actually pretty much a stalemate. Each side had about 16,000 men and each side lost 900 – 1,000 men. The defender beat off the attacks of an equal number of attackers, about what you would expect.

I don't fault Moore or Soult. Both armies were moving through pretty inhospitable terrain. I was surprised how much Soult did push his corps. Moore didn't have a choice. But I wish posters wouldn't bring up stupid things like other wars or theaters that have nothing to do with what is being discussed. Of course this has already gone off course from the original subject. :)

Oman's discussion of the number of French combatants here: link

Oman's discussion of the casualty figures here: link

So not really a stalemate at all and the obfuscations of Soult on both points speak volumes. But even ignoring that, it was Soult who brought on the action and Soult who was beaten off.

You will notice that the British won the campaign in Egypt, where they sent the French army back to France as they would do again in Portugal 7 years later.

After the battle of Maida, What did the British army do? Does that mean that that army too lost the battle?

The British beat the French army at Coruna as they did at Maida. Both though, resulted in the evacuation of the British army.

Napoleon was at the head of almost 130,000 men whereas Moore was at the head of just 30,000. But lets also not forget that the French got a bloody nose by the rearguard and Napoleon got a grandstand view of his Guard Chasseurs a' Cheval taking a good kicking.

The British had allies in Portuguese, Spanish and a few other foreign contingents including the KGL. What did the French army contain?

Wars may not be won by evacuations, but they are won because of them.

Wars can be won without winning a battle. Wars can be lost though winning battles

Campaigns can be lost and still win the war as can a campaign be won but still lose the war.

Britain lost some campaigns, won almost all her battles and won the war.

Happy Hussar:

Yes, Britain ALONE won the campaign for Spain. Here we go again. Guess the Portuguese and Spanish were just roasting weenies on the sidelines.

Spanish armies may have not had the best success rate but without them Wellington doesn't win because these men tied down significant groups of French forces in the Peninsula.

Sure is a good thing the Spanish and Portuguese decided to show up. (whistles)

But it cuts both ways. No British assistance with gold, supplies, military aid and presence, the Peninsula was doomed. (a wet dream for all those Nappy fanbois)

Anyway! It was Spain and Portugal's responsibility to fight for their country. Or would you expect them to have a six year siesta whilst the British tried to free them

But then, without the thousands of foreign troops in Napoleons army, he doesn't occupy the Peninsula either.

By the way! You forgot Burma, and north Africa.

And WWI was only won when Gary Cooper tuned up!

Paul :)

Whirlwind, there's a very good chance that Soult's casualties were a good bit higher than what was reported. Oman does as good job as anyone with strengths, but he does miss French units that were detached. (For example at Fuentes de Onoro his strength for the French is about 7,500 higher than John Gill's recent study of the battle.) The 4 Swiss battalions had been detached before Corunna.

The 4 Swiss battalions had been detached before Corunna.

That's interesting. I note that Martinien records an officer casualty from the 2nd Swiss for Corunna, a Lt. D'Armhyn, wounded there.

Incidentally, even if one assumes Balagny was correct, that doesn't change Oman's fundamental point about French infantry strength. Soult had between 35-39 infantry battalions present claiming 11,928 infantry between them. Taking the lower figure for the number of battalions, that changes the supposed average battalion strength from 306 to…340 (Oman had an error in his work anyway, writing that the average was 330). So something is awry somewhere. Either Soult lost more than 50% of his infantry chasing Moore (in which case we need to start speaking of the French "Advance to Corunna" as the true nightmare and speak in hushed tones of how well the British Army did) or the French commentators are radically underestimating the strength of the French infantry at Corunna – or more likely, a combination of both.

French and Russian losses were not even, there was no French army in 1812 it was a multinational army – with even Prussians and Austrians fighting for the megalomaniac ideas of Boney, who botched the whole operation.
France alone could not take on Russia, that says it all.

I notice that there hasn't been any mention of the ACW, let alone Gettysburg, in the last dozen posts or so. I think that answers your question.

French and Russian losses were not even, there was no French army in 1812 it was a multinational army – with even Prussians and Austrians fighting for the megalomaniac ideas of Boney, who botched the whole operation.
France alone could not take on Russia, that says it all.

There was no French army in 1812? From what I've read and studied, the French army was alive and well as an organization in 1812 and even after horrific losses in men, horses, and equipment was able to take the field in the spring of 1813 and win two battles driving the allies back to the Oder before the armistice.

There is no proof, except with continually repeating allied propaganda, that Napoleon was a megalomaniac. That is just psychobabble.

France had taken on Russia before in 1805 and 1807 and in both cases inflicted decisive defeats on the Russians.

In 1813 and 1814 Russia could not take on France alone. There had to be allies and subsidies from Great Britain to allow Russia to even take the field at all. In point of fact, Kutusov was against continuing the war against France, but he died in April 1813.

dibble

The French landed in Egypt in 1798, and Napoleon left in 1799, yet, despite the French fleet being destroyed, and despite no chance of supplies and reinforcements arriving and despite the French commander being assassinated, the French were not forced out until 1801.

And, as I have already pointed out, it is a fact that it took a very short time for the French to march all over Spain but it took the British (aided by their Spanish and Portuguese allies, along with the guerrillas and the Royal Navy) years to force them out. Napoleon was only there once and when he was the British were forced to quickly retreat and be safely evacuated by sea.

Anyway, I liked the bit where you say 'No British assistance with gold, supplies, military aid and presence and the Peninsula was doomed' Funny that because with them they were 'doomed' to several years of continuous warfare and death, as were other nations funded by the British during the Napoleonic period.

Whirlwind, I took the data from here – PDF link – bottom of page 16 to the top of page 17. I'll readily acquiesce to better sources. So 35 battalions if the Swiss battalions had been detached. Haythornthwaite doesn't try to find Soult's infantry strength. Around Dec 25 he had 25,000 men, including cavalry – 3,200? If he had 21,800 infantry his 48 battaltions averaged about 450 men at that time.

I assume you saw link. On page 341, Dominque Balagny gives the French strengths of each division, totaling 11,928 infantry. 1,241 had been detached. His totals for the French are 11,928 infantry, 3,298 cavalry and 930 artillerymen, totaling 16,156. The infantry strength averages out to 340 per battalion. Basing just on the average battalion strength, that would mean the 35 battalions lost about 3,850 men during the pursuit.

Does anybody else like twisting the lions tail?

Gazzola:

With the French being in countries they shouldn't have been in and being captured and sent home or given a good hiding, It's Great history. It's also great history that Napoleon's armies tried and tried to take the Peninsula for nigh-on 7 years but failed. Even when his nibs, Napoleon was present with an army almost 130,000 strong and a Spain who was on her knees at the same time, managed to fail in his task to to either drive the British out of the Peninsula or defeat the will of Spain and Portugal's people.

Anyway, I liked the bit where you say 'No British assistance with gold, supplies, military aid and presence and the Peninsula was doomed' Funny that because with them they were 'doomed' to several years of continuous warfare and death, as were other nations funded by the British during the Napoleonic period.

But reality was that France lost and Nappy and his pixies were rounded up, exiled, shot, imprisoned or got to retire to a peaceful life knowing that at least they had no fear of a humiliating, dictatorial, despotic Prussian, Austrian, Spanish or Russian ruling their country directly or via a sibling.

Paul :)

Paul, be careful there – that is heading into snark territory :-)

Michael,

I have had a look at Balagny, Nafziger (my downloaded copy of Balagny has the tables missing / illegible, but they are reproduced in Nafziger) & Oman today to try and follow the strength changes in Soult's forces. It is not easy! However, I think on balance that you may be right and Balagny may be closer to the total than Oman – the French infantry does appear to have suffered much more during the pursuit than is typically related: there are many *very* weak battalions by January. On the other hand, it is hard to be too confident: some of the strength returns may be simply copied from other dates.

On the other hand, I agree with Oman about the French casualties (as does the book you linked to). The only hard evidence is the loss of 330 in the single regiment of the 31st Light , so just above 1500 seems reasonable – double the British loss.

dibble

The fact is, despite not having to face Napoleon again, the British, even aided by the Spanish and Portuguese, their guerrillas and the Royal Navy, took several years to force the French out. And that included the British having to retreat on more than one occasion. It wasn't easy, that's why it took them so long. And they were probably just thankful that Napoleon did not return, since he booted them out when he was there.

I think Colonel Nick Lipscombe says it best when he states: 'Apart from the arguments of who actually won the battle of Las Corunna, the fact remained that Napoleon had succeeded in driving the leopard into the sea, but at a cost.'

(page 96: The Peninsular War Atlas by Colonel Nick Lipscombe)

Lipscombe is one of the best Napoleonic authors writing today. His book on Eastern Spain is also excellent.

The French were terrible at recording losses, other than officer losses. Makes it hard to finish up studying a battle.

Agree with the comments about Lipscombe- good historian and nice guy.

I think Colonel Nick Lipscombe says it best when he states: 'Apart from the arguments of who actually won the battle of Las Corunna, the fact remained that Napoleon had succeeded in driving the leopard into the sea, but at a cost.'
(page 96: The Peninsular War Atlas by Colonel Nick Lipscombe)

"and not for long" would have been an appropriate and worthwhile additional qualification to his accurate summation of events.

Gazzola:

Nick was wrong because the Leopard still had a paw in the Peninsula and even though the Army that Nappy led out-numbered the British by 4 to 1, He failed in his attempt, to drive the British out.

. And that included the British having to retreat on more than one occasion

"Britain lost some campaigns, won almost all her battles"

Paul :)

"Britain lost some campaigns, won almost all her battles"

Losing a campaign is much worse than losing a battle.

The British were defeated in the campaigns in Flanders in 1793-1795; Holland in 1799; Spain and Italy in 1800; Naples and Hanover in 1805; Buenos Aires and Egypt in 1806-1807; Spain in 1808 as well as Sweden in 1808; and in Holland in 1809.

And they were strategically defeated in the French Revolutionary Wars which culminated in the Peace of Amiens in 1802.

And it should also be noted that the British Army was never strong enough to take on the French alone, especially in the Iberian Peninsula from 1808-1814. Without the Spanish and especially the Portuguese Wellington would have been defeated and driven out, just as Moore was.

And without Prussian support, as well as various German contingents and the Dutch-Belgians, Wellington would have lost at Waterloo.

The French were terrible at recording losses, other than officer losses. Makes it hard to finish up studying a battle

Yes (and in the case of some generals, actively mendacious). Be that as it may, the officer losses at Corunna (which I can find, so take this as a minimum):

Generals & Staff: 5
15th Line: 2
36th Line: 1
47th Line: 12
66th Line: (1 recorded for the affair of the previous day) 0
70th Line: 6
86th Line: 2
2nd Light: (2 recorded for the 15th) 4
4th Light: 10
15th Light: 1 (plus 1 recorded for the 17th)
31st Light: 12
2nd Swiss: 1 (recorded for date of battle, but written as "taking of Corunna")
Legion du Midi: 1 (as above)
Hanoverian Legion Cav: 1
17th Dragoons: (1 recorded for the affair of the previous day) 0
Engineers: 1

The 31st Light suffered 330 casualties, for a recorded officer casualty list of 12 i.e. a ratio of 1:27.5

Given the same rate (but excluding all of the staff and the cases where there is some doubt (e.g. the Swiss)) we are left with a total of 1403. This implies a range of between 1300 and 1600 or so (greater range on the top end because of conservative assumptions). Another 50-150 may have become casualties on the previous day, but where absolute numbers are lower, the more chance there is of there being outlier results.

Surely Col Lipscombe would have been closer if he had written:

"The fact remained that Napoleon had succeeded in chasing the leopard onto its boat, at some cost".

Napoleon and the French precisely didn't drive the British Army into the sea, at least in the normal use of that expression.

I notice that there hasn't been any mention of the ACW, let alone Gettysburg, in the last dozen posts or so. I think that answers your question.

Add another dozen to that and a DH, too, Don. Yep, I think we have our answer…

Losing a campaign is much worse than losing a battle

And there's me thinking that any normal person would cite losing lots of the battles, the most significant campaigns and the war, was much, much worse….Infact, three times as worse.

Anyway, You can win all your battles, campaigns but still lose the war. Where Britain was concerned, She won all her major engagements at sea, on land and won the most significant campaigns and the war. And considering this latest round is all about France and in particular, Napoleon, we would be looking at 1796-1815.

Holland in 1799; Spain and Italy in 1800; Naples and Hanover in 1805; Buenos Aires and Egypt in 1806-1807; Spain in 1808 as well as Sweden in 1808; and in Holland in 1809.

And did I say that the British were never defeated in campaigns?

Perhaps you can give me the run-down of the set piece battles lost by the British in Holland 1799. Italy 1800. in Hanover 1805. Sweden, in 1808.

What French army beat the British in Holland 1809?

What French army beat the British in Spain 1800?

What French army beat the British in Egypt in 1806?

Where was Suchet, Soult, Ney, Lannes or Davout etc,'Even Napoleon himself' and the French army at Buenos Aires 1807?

Why leave out 'Italy' 1806. And Bergen-op-Zoom 1814?

Paul :)

dibble

With respect, a paw without the rest of the body is pretty useless, so Nick was correct in what he stated. And I don't think, from what the French could see at the time, that the British were ever considered a real threat until Wellesley arrived in April, so they continued sorting out the Spanish.

In terms of the British army, it seems it was in such a bad shape after the failure, retreat and forced evacuation of the Corunna campaign, that most of the units that were with Moore were still in recovery and did not see further action until the Walcheren expedition in July, and we know what happened there, don't we? They were beaten and had to retreat again. Sure did a lot of retreating the Brits.

'On the 24th, David Dundas, the new commander-in-chief of the army, was summoned to a meeting with minsters and asked if he could provide a force of 15,000 men. He replied that this was not possible, referring to the well-known 'shattered situation' of the army following the recent Corunna expedition.' (Page 15, Walcheren 1809 by Martin Howard)

'In the spring of 1809, with the Walcheren initiative definitely decided upon, Castlereagh and his minsters were more intent on looking forward than over their shoulder at the perceived failure in Spain.' (page 26, Walcheren 1809 by Martin R. Howard)

Not sure where you get the idea of which battles I class as French victories? And you would certainly not have made such a statement had you read some of my magazine articles which covered some of the battles you listed.

And perhaps Napoleon had the right to invade Portugal, Spain and Russia in the same way the British felt they had the right to attack neutral Denmark in 1807.

And in the same way as you boast that the French never won in a set-piece battle against the British, one could also boast that the British never defeated Napoleon in a battle on their own, even in 1815.

Gee, not only have there not been any comments on Gettysburg for the last 10 posts, but there have not been any on Waterloo for the last 20 posts or 2 pages.

It really is a shame when threads go off topic, as then in a few years people will not be able to find this valuable discussion on the British and the French and the Russians.

For those of us not as well-versed in the way Gettysburg and the 1863 Eastern campaign are viewed today, what are the main points of contention amongst those interested?

I would imagine…

Longstreet's counter-march on the 2nd and whether it was poor scouting or a deliberate delaying tactic, and the scapegoating of Longstreet.

Whether the Confederate strategic plan could really have worked i.e. Lee forces Meade to attack him, the Army of the Potomac takes a hammering, and the Union sues for peace.

Would the presence of Stonewall Jackson have changed the outcome.

or the earlier presence of JEB Stuart?

Away from my books so this might be a false memory, but I seem to recall that George Pickett when asked years later why the Confederates had lost at Gettysburg, said "I always thought that the Union army had something to do with it…."
I hope that quote is true- if so it is one of the sagest comments ever made by a military leader- right up there with some of Molkte's great sayings.

An amusing comment, perhaps, but hardly illuminating since we can assume that the questioner already had knowledge of the Union army's presence on the battlefield. The Union army had also been present at Bull Run, Fredericksburg and Chancellorsville and they lost, so I suspect the questioner was looking for something more.

A better answer might have been "Lee didn't learn the lesson of Fredericksburg and thought that head-on Napoleonic-style attacks over a mile of open ground against well positioned troops in the age of the rifled musket might actually work."

Would the presence of Stonewall Jackson have changed the outcome.

That would have depended on whether or not he was having a good day. If he would have performed as he did during the Seven Days' Battles, then no-the outcome would not have been any different.

All the current inmates of 'The Dawghouse' are there due to comments on this thread…

All the current inmates of 'The Dawghouse' are there due to comments on this thread…

Just another day on the Naps board….

what are the main points of contention amongst those interested?

See this recent TMP thread:

TMP link

Many thanks, Don.