Ask Your Question today
If the French Napoleonic military from 1813 faced the Confederate military from 50 years later, which side would win? Napoleonic France is tactically better because, well, they have Napoleon. But the confederates on the other hand, they have more modern weaponry, and some industrialization.
| Napoleonic France | 15 | |
| The Confederacy | 14 |
Confederate marksmanship tips force multipliers against the French. If naval support could disrupt confederate supply lines tho, the French military could shut down the confederate ground offensive real fast.
You mean Napoleon and his wooden sailing fleet against Iron cladded steam ships? Iron cladded ships are reported to have cannon balls bounce off the haul. The confederates have the naval tech advantage leading to a superiority in ship power.
Good point. Iron clad ships are superior. But IIRC, the confederate navy had only one of them. This means that about 10 wooden ships would have to surround the thing and place a shot to hit the cannon on the iron clad wrecking the bore diameter. Of course, this hypothetical situation isn't very realistic. Other naval tactics would prevail, like splitting the fleet into different groups to attack confederate supply ships further out at sea.
I can tell you are knowledgeable about civil war military history, which I know nothing about. So, I'll leave the details to you. Naval war games get fun to analyze tho. Bayesian probabilities and decision trees pop up right away; every tactic has a counter-tactic.
Actually gotta go with napoleon because he had much more soldiers. The confederates had really good generals and its the only reason the war lasted so long and even had a chance of succession. Most of the confederate generals all studied at west point along side the yankee cadets who they'd end up fighting. Just so happened the best generals lived in the south and owned slaves.
While napoleon had good soldiers he was an artilary man at heart. Something that the longer ranged rifled cannons the south had that would potentially chew through the battle lines of napolean from farther away than their own cannons.
Id still go with napoleon if he had a way to get troops to the US. One thing the US has on its side is really rough geography surrounding it. You need a massive navy to compete with the US.
You would also need a way to supply your invading force. Without supply lines your front line will starve and not be replenished when there are losses. An army marches on their bellies.
Probably the confederacy... Superior technology, superior weapons.
Tho if navies were involved it could be a different outcome. While wooden ships are no match for Ironclad warships, the Confederacy didn't have many ships... While the French navy had a lot more ships and probably better strategies on how to cut off supply chains and restrict the Confederacy.
The French were better trained and had an iconic strategist as a leader. Still, I believe in superior technology.
If you had the best racer from the 1920s in his early Grand Prix racecar race against me (regular car guy) in a modern racing car, I firmly believe I would win, because of a much superior car.
Someone should do a simulation of this in Totally Accurate Battle Simulator and settle this once and for all XD
I can see it being brought into a stalemate with France invading but being unsuccessful and the confederates being unable to invade because the sea is blocked for them.
Considering Napoleon died in 1821 and the CSA wasn't formed until 1861, my money would be on the military with a live body leading.
Napoleon would win... The French Navy was vastly superior to the Confederate navy. The French Navy would sink almost all ships on the way from the US; and what few Confederate Solders landed in France would be outnumbered so badly that their modern weapons would not make any difference.
Conversely, if France decided to invade the Confederacy (and they were not fighting the Union). The French Navy would blockade all ports to the Confederacy along with protecting many more solders and weapons... That the Confederacy would eventually loose as they cannot move enough trade by the land routes with the Union portion of the USA.
It seems that every time you ask one of these questions on who would win... you totally forget about Naval Power and how important ocean going trade is.
I suggest that you really need to study that subject... so you understand how important and impactful who controls the sea is.
The industrialization and usage of steamships by the confederates are by far more powerful than the average french sailing ship. Even a full broadside by a galleon would only dent a ironclad ship, even then a steamship would be faster in unappealing winds.
Dont forget that by the civil war started explosive cannon artillery shells were figured out. Giving any wooden hauled ships a massive disadvantage from not only fire but also the extra fragmentation explosive shells would wrought on the wooden ships.
Because of the tech advantage the confederates win just by having a superior capacity to sink the french. But this also means that the confederates could also seige the coastal waters of france. Not enough to win entirely but possibly good enough to force an agreement.
The Confederate Navy was relatively small and ineffective. It was not able to prevent the Union Navy from blocading almost all of its shipping (shipping was reduced to about 5% of its previous level by Union Navy Blacade).
The French Navy was as big and as good as the Union Navy.
A few experimental iron clad ships would not have made a difference against the French Navy. Development of explosive cannonballs were not restricted the Confederacy and the Union. I think the French may have actually been ahead of us there.
The French Navy would have blocaded the Confederate Shipping as effectively, if not more effectively than what the Union did. The Confederate Navy could not even have attempted to send a fleet to France... they just did not have the ships, nor the experienced seamen to cross the Atlantic Ocean.
I looked up exploding shell history: 1st recorded use was 1376 by Venice (which was a Mediterranean Naval Power back then).
The Chinese also developed (or improved them) shortly thereafter.
By the 1800's fuse technology had developed to where they were highly effective - and all the European countries, and their Navies, had them.
The Confederacy and Union were essentially copying European designs... France would have been far ahead of the Confederacy in the use and effectiveness of their exploding cannon shells.
Probably confederacy. The rifles used during the civil war were vastly superior, with higher accuracy and a bit faster rate of fire, and this more than compensates for the fact that confederate soldiers weren't as well trained as the french were.
I read in several military histories or journals about the key of discipline and strategy in the use of firearms and I've read the following story several times in different places.
In Africa about 5000 African Tribesmen armed with spears and clubs attached about 100 British solders armed with muzzle loading rifles. The best possible rate of fire was 1 shot every 45 seconds, and it was often closer to 1 a minute.
The British solders won the battle and killed most of the attacking tribesmen, with either no or minimal casualties for the British solders.
Decades later a similar fight occurred with similar numbers - only this time the British solders had semi-automatic weapons where they could shoot every second or two - and they had something like 20,000 rounds of ammo available.
The African Tribesmen totally wiped out the British, and had only modest casualties.
Superior weapons don't matter if you do not have proper discipline and strategy.
In the 2nd case the British tried spraying bullets all over the place - with most missing a target, or if they hit someone it was in a non critical place that did not stop the charge and the spears...
In the 1st case no one shot unless they had someone solidly in proper sight with steady trigger pulls so they hit what they were aiming at (and a lot were head shots), and the solders passed rifles back and forward for reloading by others.
The French were better trained and had a better strategic leader than the Confederacy. I don't think it would be any contest.
Counter argument: weren't the confederates without a lot of "good" rifles, using mostly antiquated weapons since they lacked the industrial capacity of the north?