I would like to ask you guys, what about Napoleon you like so much? (1 Viewer)

[debrito]

This inquiry reminds me a little of the question: who would win in a fight...Superman or Mighty Mouse?

I know that muskets are an imperfect weapon, but enough shooting in volley have a tendency to leave large trails of dead men...I won't even get into the devastating effects of Napoleonic artillery.

shooting in volley have a tendency to leave large trails of

Because they, the enemies, did stand still in huge line waiting to be shooting...VERY Easy

salmatians auxiliaries archers, the best in the roman army, could shoot in a long range, twice longer that any muskets, and with precise accuracy .. and I insist, without any protection on the chest, arms, legs, etc. the Nap army will not stand that....

 

[Phantom Warrior]

Not forgotten at all mate; just a page back. I hope you know I would not forget Napoleon's "daughters".

Interesting match-up. I have some statistics from Muller who served in the King's German Legion. They are for 6 pdr.

The cannon would have the advantage at long range, out of range of bows and catapults, but would do little damage. Between 800 - 1600 yds, a 6 pdr firing 2 rounds of shell per minute would result in only 4 killed and 4 wounded during the 800 yd. advance. At 800 - 1200 yds using solid shot 8 killed and 2 wounded. At 400 - 800 yds using heavy cannister 16 killed and 10 wounded. At 0 - 400 yds. using light cannister 30 killed and 90 wounded.

A 12 pdr would have slightly better results per shot and at longer ranges, but would fire at only 1 shot per minute.

Where the Romans could do some real damage is at the range of a bow against unarmoured infantry and artillery, especially with the high rate of fire they could maintain. However, the Roman bow has a range of only 150 - 200 yards which would put them beyond the range of muskets but inside the maximum killing zone of cannon using light cannister and they would have to get through the zone of heavy cannister first..

Terry

 

[Spitfrnd]

Interesting match-up. I have some statistics from Muller who served in the King's German Legion. They are for 6 pdr.

The cannon would have the advantage at long range, out of range of bows and catapults, but would do little damage. Between 800 - 1600 yds, a 6 pdr firing 2 rounds of shell per minute would result in only 4 killed and 4 wounded during the 800 yd. advance. At 800 - 1200 yds using solid shot 8 killed and 2 wounded. At 400 - 800 yds using heavy cannister 16 killed and 10 wounded. At 0 - 400 yds. using light cannister 30 killed and 90 wounded.

A 12 pdr would have slightly better results per shot and at longer ranges, but would fire at only 1 shot per minute.

Where the Romans could do some real damage is at the range of a bow against unarmoured infantry and artillery, especially with the high rate of fire they could maintain. However, the Roman bow has a range of only 150 - 200 yards which would put them beyond the range of muskets but inside the maximum killing zone of cannon using light cannister and they would have to get through the zone of heavy cannister first..

Terry

A couple of thoughts on the above.

The differential range is certainly a factor and in fact, muskets had a range of up to 300 yards although their accuracy and killing power was poor at that range.

The more important point is the extremely disparate weight of fire between the two armies of their periods. An equivalent number of men for each would yield many more cannons than catapults. Moreover, every infantryman was armed with a musket whereas only the Roman archer auxiliaries were armed with bows. So when they came into bow range, the relative weight of fire from muskets would have been devastating for those surviving the canister and shot. Moreover, the Roman infantry was most effective in their tight ranks with overlapping shields. The cannon and musket fire would leave very large gaps in those ranks by the time the survivors ever got to close with the French. Frankly, it would be even worse for them against the British who were more disciplined and more accurate in their shooting.

 

[maloyalo]

I think what captivated me about the man himself, was reading about Napoleon's first campaign's and how he outwitted and out-manuvered so many opponents. It was followed by his interesting organization and standardization of the army. He gained such a reputation that he was often greatly feared by the opposing generals.

The Russian campaign is fascinating and has many memorable scenes to depict. I had thought in the past about trying a 1:72 scale dio myself (project abandoned) and was considering the Battle of (drum roll) Malo Yaroslavets... hence my user name

That is I think, is a fairly forgotten battle but always fascinated me in how the Italian/French forces repeatedly won and lost the Bridge over the river (footnote: they retained a sort of bridgehead though, through-out, having occupied some sort of strong group of buildings, perhaps a Convent or Church on the Russian side of the river. But it was at times totally isolated.).
But the battle was for the most part fought by Eugene, Napoleon only showing up towards the end.

 

[debrito]

A couple of thoughts on the above.

The differential range is certainly a factor and in fact, muskets had a range of up to 300 yards although their accuracy and killing power was poor at that range.

The more important point is the extremely disparate weight of fire between the two armies of their periods. An equivalent number of men for each would yield many more cannons than catapults. Moreover, every infantryman was armed with a musket whereas only the Roman archer auxiliaries were armed with bows. So when they came into bow range, the relative weight of fire from muskets would have been devastating for those surviving the canister and shot. Moreover, the Roman infantry was most effective in their tight ranks with overlapping shields. The cannon and musket fire would leave very large gaps in those ranks by the time the survivors ever got to close with the French. Frankly, it would be even worse for them against the British who were more disciplined and more accurate in their shooting.

I will continue to be the annoying guy by repeat that without any kind of body protection, the Napoleon’s soldiers will not stand the arrows. An agile archer could throw an average of 45 arrows a minute, so multiple at least by 1 000 archers is more than 40 000 arrows, one after another, not allowing the French army to able breath.....

To load a Musket or cannon take an eternity.

 

[Spitfrnd]

I will continue to be the annoying guy by repeat that without any kind of body protection, the Napoleon’s soldiers will not stand the arrows. An agile archer could throw an average of 45 arrows a minute, so multiple at least by 1 000 archers is more than 40 000 arrows, one after another, not allowing the French army to able breath.....

To load a Musket or cannon take an eternity.

Well Rod, the thing is if you started with 1000, you will have less than 500 by the time they are in range and even then I think 45 arrows a minute is rather unusual. Muskets can be fired 3 times a minute and cannons up to 8 pound, twice a minute, so I think the weight of fire would still decidedly favor the French. There is a reason armies transistioned from bows to muskets.

 

[aujj65]

Well Rod, the thing is if you started with 1000, you will have less than 500 by the time they are in range and even then I think 45 arrows a minute is rather unusual. Muskets can be fired 3 times a minute and cannons up to 8 pound, twice a minute, so I think the weight of fire would still decidedly favor the French. There is a reason armies transistioned from bows to muskets.

Well trained and seasoned English archers (Medieval) could only get off 12 per minute at the most!

Jeff

 

[Phantom Warrior]

Well Rod, the thing is if you started with 1000, you will have less than 500 by the time they are in range and even then I think 45 arrows a minute is rather unusual. Muskets can be fired 3 times a minute and cannons up to 8 pound, twice a minute, so I think the weight of fire would still decidedly favor the French. There is a reason armies transistioned from bows to muskets.

I think it is more like 12 arrows per minute.

Terry

 

[debrito]

I think it is more like 12 arrows per minute.

Terry

A Sarmatian archer could throw, while running on the top of horse, 7 arrows in 10 seconds. So, imagine when they are stand still.....

 

[Spitfrnd]

A Sarmatian archer could throw, while running on the top of horse, 7 arrows in 10 seconds. So, imagine when they are stand still.....

I think that if they could do that, then it wouldn't matter whether they were still or not. Sarmatians were practically born in the saddle so riding was as natural to them as standing. I also think that a number like that is akin to a sprint. I doubt very, very seriously if it could be sustained. Besides, it still comes down to weight of fire. The French may not have shields but against muskets and cannons, the Roman shields would be useless. More lethal flying objects for a longer period equals more casualities.

 

[debrito]

I think that if they could do that, then it wouldn't matter whether they were still or not. Sarmatians were practically born in the saddle so riding was as natural to them as standing. I also think that a number like that is akin to a sprint. I doubt very, very seriously if it could be sustained. Besides, it still comes down to weight of fire. The French may not have shields but against muskets and cannons, the Roman shields would be useless. More lethal flying objects for a longer period equals more casualities.

Bill, I think that we will bring this forever without agreement, you will pull for your side, (Napoleon) and I will always pull for my Roman side....and so on, so on and son on....

Just one last thing, Napoleon time were almost 2 000 years after the Romans, so this show how the Romans were advanced for the time, the first professional soldiers in history.

 

[thebritfarmer]

I would imagine that it also not necessarily the weapons used but also the size of the armies attacking.

 

[trooper]

The Romans, not being familiar with firearms, would be at an acute disadvantage. Their cavalry horses would be unmanageable and the infantry definitely scared out of their wits. The whole army would most likely run after the first volley.

 

[Spitfrnd]

Bill, I think that we will bring this forever without agreement, you will pull for your side, (Napoleon) and I will always pull for my Roman side....and so on, so on and son on....

Just one last thing, Napoleon time were almost 2 000 years after the Romans, so this show how the Romans were advanced for the time, the first professional soldiers in history.

Don't get me wrong, I have nothing but the greatest respect for Roman Legions. Afterall, the Roman Empire was much more extensive than that of Napoleon and lasted much longer, even with all the internal strife and decadence. Actually I am not really pulling for any side here, I just think it is a simple comparison of arms. Of course we are assuming a comparable sized force so unit size is not a factor. I think you need to remember that the Roman axillary archer and catapult forces were designed for a different purpose than the French Artillery and were numerically a much smaller portion of a given unit. Also, while Legionaries had the disposable pilum, they only had one or two and needed to be pretty close to be effective. Once again their main strength was to close with their enemies and take them with their well disciplined shield walls and short swords. In this contest, the French could simply stay out of their grip until their numbers had been good and fairly depleted and then have their cavalry take them in the rear when they broke and ran.

Of course we are having a friendly debate but I really am not biased either way. If you could convince me that the Romans could ever get close enough to use their short swords that would be another matter. I simply think any decent French commander would have sense enough to use his superior range and firepower. It would be fun to computer sim however.

 

[debrito]

I would imagine that it also not necessarily the weapons used but also the size of the armies attacking.

I mentioned from the beginning that both armies have the same amount of soldiers. For sure, napoleon's army has more than a million men compared to the average 50 000 Romans Legionaires. .


Bill, don't worry my friend, I really enjoyed this thread.....Naps dio will come later on.

Regards

 

[maloyalo]

Romans vs Napoleonic Troops ?

The bow & spear vs firearm match-up was in fact played out hundreds of times, over hundreds of years. Bows & spears lost at least 90% of the battles, and most all of the wars, don't you think ?

So I would say, that unless the French were having a really, really bad day, they were very likely to win.

 

[fishead19690]

Hey Rod, its great to see you getting interested in the Napoleonic period!
You should skip the mountains and trees idea of a napoleonic diorama and go straight to what you do best and make up a small early 19th century town.

Most of the battles of the period were fought near small cities and towns or at least had large farm complexes. This is where some of the worst fighting took place and hand to hand house to house fighting was done and a lot of times the towns would be taken and retaken many times in the course of the battle with reserves from both sides making the battle for these towns like a sea saw.

Now as far as the Romans against Napoleon or even any other gunpowder army??? They would be crushed before they could bring any of there short range weapons into use! When Napoleon fought the Mamelukes in Egypt it was kinda the same type of battle, An army of incredible cavalry similar to say like the Huns who fought the Romans often and got the best of them and they were destroyed by Napoleons cannons. And as far as arrows They were used by Russian Bashkirs against the french in the late Napoleonic period and they were laughed at and thought of as a joke by the french troops in Russia. They had little effect at longer range. These Bashkir troops were desendants of the Huns and are raised to ride horses and shot there bows while riding just like the Huns did before them that helped kill the Roman empire, so I have very little doubt the Romans would loose but who knows??? Look at Islandwana, if caught off guard with a good plan wich the Romans were very well known for they might put up a fight for a bit, but the long run still wouldn,t look good.

 

[The Military Workshop]

To answer the question and to quote another Forum member

NAPOLEONICS !

Regards
Brett

 

[debrito]

Hey Rod, its great to see you getting interested in the Napoleonic period!
You should skip the mountains and trees idea of a napoleonic diorama and go straight to what you do best and make up a small early 19th century town.

Most of the battles of the period were fought near small cities and towns or at least had large farm complexes. This is where some of the worst fighting took place and hand to hand house to house fighting was done and a lot of times the towns would be taken and retaken many times in the course of the battle with reserves from both sides making the battle for these towns like a sea saw.

Now as far as the Romans against Napoleon or even any other gunpowder army??? They would be crushed before they could bring any of there short range weapons into use! When Napoleon fought the Mamelukes in Egypt it was kinda the same type of battle, An army of incredible cavalry similar to say like the Huns who fought the Romans often and got the best of them and they were destroyed by Napoleons cannons. And as far as arrows They were used by Russian Bashkirs against the french in the late Napoleonic period and they were laughed at and thought of as a joke by the french troops in Russia. They had little effect at longer range. These Bashkir troops were desendants of the Huns and are raised to ride horses and shot there bows while riding just like the Huns did before them that helped kill the Roman empire, so I have very little doubt the Romans would loose but who knows??? Look at Islandwana, if caught off guard with a good plan wich the Romans were very well known for they might put up a fight for a bit, but the long run still wouldn,t look good.

Hello Tim, how are you?

I am happy to see that there are other possibilities other then landscapes for the Napoleon's dioramas, still have to learn how to create different terrains. Maybe I will check some of your dioramas to get inspired ...

Concerns the Romans X Napoleon’s Army, I think I am the only one thinking that somehow the Romans arrows could make damages, but I think I am wrong....
I am a big fan of the Imperial Rome, have some plans to create something small related to this period....later on.

The 19th Century diorama will come later this year.

Cheers.