|
Post by tarkin1980 on Jul 15, 2015 18:03:20 GMT
Which battle do you think is the most interesting (and feasible, size wise) to recreate, and why?
I have mostly been reading about Waterloo since this period began to interest me, but the more I read, the duller it seems. My impression of the battle is that it was a just head on slug out in a cramped space with very little tactical finesse and few, if any, brilliant command decisions made on either side. I think that if it was not for the political impact (ie the fall of Napoleon and end of the war) of the battle, it would probably be one of the least remembered battles of the era. Do you agree?
|
|
|
Post by tim on Jul 15, 2015 19:30:05 GMT
I agree with you that Waterloo is not an interesting battle, just a slugfest. Quatre Bras is much more interesting, reasonable size and could have gone either way. The Peninsular has lots of smaller battles that are good. And for something completely different how about the crossing of the Berezina on the retreat from Moscow, rearguard action with the Russians closing in from all sides and the French have a bridge to build in the middle of the action!
Tim
|
|
|
Post by perthpete on Jul 15, 2015 22:33:47 GMT
For me Dresden as I think its a battle that you can get alot of very different results from, played it a few times on computer simulation and managed comprehensive and close wins for both sides.
|
|
Gary
Active membe
Posts: 24
Favorite army: The French for the moment. :p
|
Post by Gary on Jul 16, 2015 7:41:52 GMT
I'm reading a lot of stuff about Waterloo right now as, well, the bicentenary just happened and I still feel that's an interesting battle although it would be a shame to limit the period to that one battle. It's not my favorite battle but some things grab your attention such as the French cavalry charge against the British squares, the desperate fight in Plancenoit and so on. However, it does not look as a "close thing" as Wellington knew Blucher was right around the corner thanks to the numerous messages they exchanged while Napoleon thought he was retreating towards his lines of communication. There's also the fact Napoleon didn't check the battlefield as he usually did before while Wellington had done it a year before. The British were firmly entrenched while the French didn't even know what they were up against (like Hougoumont, or rather Gomont, which was believed to be a wood by the French, they didn't know there was fortified farm behind the woods). And some historians think Napoleon was not "leading the army" this day and just left his officers do it, as he thought the British would be easily defeated and he was sick. Oops! About "finesse", I guess there are a lot of other battles with interesting moves, such as Marengo, Austerlitz, Iena/Auerstaedt, Friedland, Wagram, Aspern-Essling... There are also the serie of battles in the campaign of France where Napoleon, with a vastly outnumbered army, chained victories during four days. And probably a lot of other battles I'm forgetting right now. (didn't mention Borodino or Leipzig though as they are the ones with most men which did not allow for much finesse)
|
|
|
Post by perthpete on Jul 16, 2015 8:16:42 GMT
Yeah I know just deleted it I copied and pasted it by mistake.
|
|
|
Post by grizzlymc on Jul 16, 2015 13:22:27 GMT
Actually, I have akways thught that the counter attack of the Union and Household brigades was a textbook case of how to break a near unstoppable attack. That aside, the Corsican dwarf did show a complete lack of finesse. Almost every corps got sucked into a fight at its own place in the line, there was no attempt to either flank or pierce the line.
I would say that if it is Tactical finesse that you want, Salamanca is the battle for you. A superb lesson in getting inside the enemy's decidion loop and a textbook case of the oblique attack. It is also a good battle to quote to those who maintain that Wellington was a defensive general.
|
|