Redcoats or French Imperial Army?

KingArthur

KingArthur

You Have Alerted the Horse
[REDACTED]
So this thread is pretty straightforward; I’m just curious as to which side you guys think was more well equipped/trained, overall a better fighting force; the Colonial English Regulars (including the Highlander divisions and sharpshooter riflemen), or the French Guard under Napoleon. Cavalry can be taken into account, so the French Royal Guard Cavalry and the British Dragoons are fair game.
 
Because Sean Bean

upload_2018-12-22_17-30-52.jpeg
 
mobucks said:
Because Sean Bean

View attachment 11356
Click to expand...
Fair enough lol. I figured French, mostly because on neutral ground they have the advantage of numbers. Though, England has the advantage of better leadership imo (Arthur Wellesley, Lord Cornwallis, John Moore, etc.)

Overall I’d have to say: open neutral ground, win goes to French. Forested or hilly neutral ground: British supply lines and logistical support for the win.
 
Historically, Vive le France. There is a reason why France for the most part of history, was the European continents pre-eminent superpower.

Had Napoleon not attacked Russia like a fucking fool, he could have been content to maintain fortress Europe and just economically beat down the Russians and Brits. It is no secret that one of the biggest flaws of the Tsarist Russian military was logistics. Stretch or thin out their supply lines and they are effectively fucked. Brits have naval power, whoop de doo. Fortress Europe, is well, fortress fucking Europe.
 
Last edited:
DarkCorp said:
Historically, Vive le France. There is a reason why France for the most part of history, was the European continents pre-eminent superpower.

Had Napoleon not attacked Russia like a fucking fool, he could have been content to maintain fortress Europe and just economically beat down the Russians and Brits. It is no secret that one of the biggest flaws of the Tsarist Russian military was logistics. Stretch or thin out their supply lines and they are effectively fucked. Brits have naval power, whoop de doo. Fortress Europe, is well, fortress fucking Europe.
Click to expand...
I also think the leadership of the French could be their downfall in this matchup though; through incompetence and Napoleon’s overconfidence pulling a Waterloo, a perfect storm of fuckups could give Britain the advantage.
 
Waterloo was AFTER, the disastrous losses inflicted by the Russian campaign.

Again, France had pretty much PWNED Europe. The French military establishment was so strong that they were able to push deep into Russian territory. Again, it wasn't so much fighting skill as something as simple as LOGISTICS. It is common sense that as you push deeper into enemy territory, the fight gets harder, not easier. Without a capable navy and bases for re supply, the only method for supply was over land.

If the IFA hadn't sustained such horrendous casualties (much like Nazi Germany later down the road), they could have just went on the defensive. Any land operation would have been most likely crushed and a strong army would buy France time to work on a capable navy. The same IFA would have also been able to weather some incompetent leadership, well, other than Napoleons decision to attack Russia.
 
Last edited:
@DarkCorp suppose you’re right there. But my argument is that British supply lines would make the French campaign Hell, which it seems like you share, at least partially.
 
AureliusofPhoenix said:
@DarkCorp suppose you’re right there. But my argument is that British supply lines would make the French campaign Hell, which it seems like you share, at least partially.
Click to expand...

Of course I agree.

Just like a French invasion of the British Isles would be equally disastrous. What some leaders never learned, was the lesson of having ENOUGH (nature of the beast I suppose). Even Alexander the fucking GREAT, had to stop. His men were tired of killing, and even, WINNING. At some point, people need to rest. That is why a great empire lasts through TIME. Empires need a SUCCESSION of good leaders, who all build upon the achievements of their predecessors. Let Napoleon have fortress Europe. Consolidate the victory. Work on weaknesses. Save other problems for later. Rome wasn't built in a day.
 
DarkCorp said:
Of course I agree.

Just like a French invasion of the British Isles would be equally disastrous. What some leaders never learned, was the lesson of having ENOUGH (nature of the beast I suppose). Even Alexander the fucking GREAT, had to stop. His men were tired of killing, and even, WINNING. At some point, people need to rest. That is why a great empire lasts through TIME. Empires need a SUCCESSION of good leaders, who all build upon the achievements of their predecessors. Let Napoleon have fortress Europe. Consolidate the victory. Work on weaknesses. Save other problems for later. Rome wasn't built in a day.
Click to expand...
I agree with all of this. His invasion of Russia was overreaching it; what I meant by his overconfidence pulling a Waterloo is a reference to a story about how apparently on the morning of the first day of that battle, one of Napoleon’s aides ran into his tent to tell him that the coalition was coming. He irritatedly waved them away and continued casually eating his breakfast.
 
And this is where I agree with the incompetence issue. However, some bad decisions have more weight than others. Russia was one of those make or break it mistakes. Again, with a strong, intact military, the IFA could weather some less monumental mistakes.
 
DarkCorp said:
And this is where I agree with the incompetence issue. However, some bad decisions have more weight than others. Russia was one of those make or break it mistakes. Again, with a strong, intact military, the IFA could weather some less monumental mistakes.
Click to expand...
That is a very fair point. I feel like things at Waterloo would’ve ended even a little differently had, say, Grouchy prevented the Prussians from joining the Allied army. The French had their share of great leaders; suppose it depends on whether Napoleon can stop and think rather than hastily act that makes the difference.
 
I don't make memes but,

*insert picture of dos xX man'.

'We French do not make a lot of mistakes, but when we do, it is a fucking doozy.'
 
It depends on where.

In Europe, France and Germany have more military achievements than UK.
In America and Oceania, Brittish and Spain had beaten France and the others.
In Africa, it is France or UK.
In Asia, the brits overwhelmed every other european nations.

DarkCorp said:
Historically, Vive le France. .
Click to expand...

Vive LA France.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top