17
   

Unknown Civil War Officer?????

 
 
Ionus
 
  0  
Reply Thu 18 Mar, 2010 01:11 am
@Walter Hinteler,
You are correct about german territories, and in France but in 1815 Napoleon had not yet instigated conscription again. His political position was precarious and he was busy writing letters of peace to the major Powers. How would it look if he begged them for peace whilst conscripting a large army ? The King had political problems in dispersing the grande Army of 1814, so it had remained larger than he wanted. On the Kings return to power after the 100 days, he was politically strong enough to cripple Frances army to save money.

In 1812, Napoleon had many german conscripts and as he marched through germany they went home ! Then he had loses up till the capture of Moscow, and by the time all this is factored in, the retreat from Moscow in winter did not kill as many as popular history thinks.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Thu 18 Mar, 2010 03:07 am
The troops which Napoleon put in the field in 1813 were conscripts. The army which he took to the Battle of Nations in 1813 was young, raw, barely trained and inexperienced. Not many of the survivors of Leipsic fought with Napoleon in the late winter, spring 1814 campaign. Apart from the Old Guard, about 3,000 men at most, the bulk of the troops for the Hundred Days simply did not have the training or the combat experience of French armies in the period 1794--1809. Even before 1813, Napoleon was always a year or two ahead in his conscription; for Russia, he called up the "classes" of 1813 and 1814, and he was calling up the "class" of 1815 to fight for him in Germany in 1813.

Once again, the "cream" of the company and field grade officers, and the non-commissioned officers of la grande armée were lost in Spain, in the Wagram campaign and in Russia. He did not have the officer cadre upon which he had always relied. The Great Army which Napoleon took to Waterloo was barely a ghost of the army with which he had overawed Europe before 1808.
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Mar, 2010 03:32 am
Napoleon started the Waterloo campaign against the Prussians "second" army. their best army was still in prussia and was to link up with the Russians. He had 60,000 soldiers from the King (more than the King wanted to pay for) and called up all previous soldiers. This made a total of about 260,000 men in various stages of readiness. He sent some to hold the borders whilst he took the best, a veteran army from previous campaigns of about 120,000 to fight the British and Prussians. He never relied on conscription for his forces in 1815 but he had hoped that a quick victory would give him the political leverage to restart conscription.

more to follow....
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Thu 18 Mar, 2010 03:49 am
The point, which seems to have escaped you entire, is that the "veterans" you allege he used had been conscripts in 1813, and had seen little service, especially in comparison to the Great Army which he took to Wagram. You also continually avoid the issue of the utter devastation of his officer corps in Spain, at Wagram and in Russia.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Thu 18 Mar, 2010 04:10 am
In 1809, "King Joseph" had some veteran French troops at Talavera near Madrid, but the bulk of his army were Germans, Poles and Dutch. The main French forces were with Napoleon in the Wagram campaign. In 1812, of the more than 400,000 which he assembled in and south of Poland, half or more were Germans and Poles, or the troops of the Army of Italy, which had also fought at Wagram. The roughly 150,000 men with which he arrived at Borodino were French, while the Germans and Poles held the left of the campaigning area and the Army of Italy the right. The troops which Napoleon lost in Russia were primarily French veterans of his earlier campaigns. When he faced the Allies in Germany in 1813, he had to rely on conscripts.

So just what were these allegedly veteran troops veterans of? The defeat at Leipsic? The winter campaign in 1814? It is laughable to compare the army of the Hundred Days to the army which he employed from 1797 to 1808. You're just arguing for arguments sake.
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  0  
Reply Thu 18 Mar, 2010 06:02 am
The French army managed to maintain its loses in the officer ranks a lot easier than most armies of the period. In Britain you could buy a commission. In France you could rise up through the ranks based solely on merit. Every soldier liked to think that he had the baton of a Marshall in his knapsack.

You seem to think that every soldier who enlisted in 1797 was alive in 1808. France had severe losses of manpower and there was never a time when there were not large losses. It was Napoleon's style to break the centre because if you won this way you could negate your loses by inflicting a severe defeat on the enemy. Your attitude that experience came to an end is laughable. Your attitude that the army after 1812 had not recovered by 1815 is pathetic and shows ignorance on a Grande scale. I have not commented on the army of 1808 which was the arguably the finest French army of the period. For those who can read without adding nonsense from their own mind, I said the army of 1815 was one of the best. It should be obvious to even the dull and ignorant that statement does not exclude others.
danon5
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Mar, 2010 01:29 pm
@Ionus,
Enjoying all ---
Ionus, I do have to commend you on your spelling - you've done what every gambler wants to do - win. Congratulations upon your success after all the recent postings you have miss uh er spelled very few words and actually have been attempting to use correct grammer. Damn, that's progress. I give you an A- at this point. Great going fella!!!!!

PS: Notice my erroer?? I would have corrected it except I had already "Posted it" --- Tiny Smile.

Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Mar, 2010 03:40 pm
Say whatever you like, Ionus. It is certainly reasonable that officers and NCOs who served with Napoleon from 1797 onward would have been available in 1815--if so many had not been slaughtered in 1809 and 1812. All you're doing here is attempting to suggest you have specialized knowledge without actually demonstrating the case.

Your performance at this site in all subjects is such that no reasonable member familiar with your "contribution" is going to give you ordinary credence.
danon5
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Mar, 2010 05:25 pm
@Setanta,
Ianus, You can at least give us ONE reasonable reference. HUH??

Awaiting a repenitence..............!!!!!

Oh, that's a twice thingy.......hehehehe

Ionus
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 18 Mar, 2010 05:45 pm
@danon5,
Your ability to contribute is improving. Next time we will aim for accuracy as well as volume.
Ionus
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 18 Mar, 2010 05:46 pm
@danon5,
For you clown....nothing but contempt at how far people allow their egos to control their actions.
0 Replies
 
danon5
 
  2  
Reply Thu 18 Mar, 2010 05:50 pm
@Ionus,
Thank you Ionus.

I admittedly did misspell yur name. Geese, I applogixe.

I'll try to do better id tha futur.

Rockhead
 
  2  
Reply Thu 18 Mar, 2010 05:53 pm
@danon5,
mighta even been freudian.

we'll never know...
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Mar, 2010 05:54 pm
@Setanta,
Quote:
All you're doing here is attempting to suggest you have specialized knowledge without actually demonstrating the case.
All you're doing here is demonstrating you have no specialized knowledge without actually even attempting the case. Your argument is that they never had loses before and there were no mechanisms to replace them. They had every mechanism required by a modern army. They had training schools, they promoted from the ranks based on ability and they had the same comparable loses as their enemies but better methods to replace officers.
The Fench army had nothing but loses, from start to finish. The break you attribute to post 1812 is imaginary.
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 18 Mar, 2010 05:58 pm
@danon5,
Dont bother clown. Spelling is an over rated feature emphasised by those who cant communicate. Hey look, clown is a fool, but he can look up a dictionary !! Or is that because of your one finger typing ? How long do you take to write compared to someone who knows what they want to say ? If that is all you have no wonder you emphasise it. Brilliant contribution so far too, clown.
0 Replies
 
danon5
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Mar, 2010 05:59 pm
@danon5,
You really should stop now. You are really much too easily controlled.

It's your insecurity that is your problem. You skould keep it in X.

Da - er, - ahhh, shucks.

----------------
Back now, hey Rocky, got something in mind?? I know Bubba who want's a date.



Ionus
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 18 Mar, 2010 06:03 pm
@danon5,
But I like talking to you. You make me remember there are misfortunates out there who dont have a hope at life. They are stupid, poorly educated, billigerant clowns who will never do anything more than run around the heels of someone else barking loudly and thinking they are doing well. Brings a tear to my eye to realise despite your many handicaps you think you are contributing. Thats the spirit ! What a brave little fellow you are.....
danon5
 
  2  
Reply Thu 18 Mar, 2010 06:08 pm
@Ionus,
Thanks again Ianus,
It's been fun, however, I'm tired and I'm going to stop now. You still haven't given us a single real substantiated story. We need references. Otherwise, you are just conjecture.

See ya later.

Ionus
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 18 Mar, 2010 06:19 pm
@danon5,
And you are just a frightened little dog who cant contribute, only run around the others barking.
0 Replies
 
LtFrederick
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Apr, 2010 12:46 am
@VReaction,
The photo is definately not of anyone of the American Civil War period. I would agree that this is an Italian Bersaglieri of the World War-I era. The tunic style and cut, the collar insignias and headdress is definately Italian military. The upright collar and coat style imply this is pre-1939 era, most likely that of WWI vintage. The photo type and style as well as the large oval frame and domed glass mentioned is most common of the 1910-1925 era. These were usually made enlarged from an original smaller photo, thus the resulting darkened and grainy appearance that the artist typically would hand retouch to give some color hue and better definition.

Respects
Frederick
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

HAPPY ANNIVERSARY, EVERYONE! - Discussion by OmSigDAVID
WIND AND WATER - Discussion by Setanta
Who ordered the construction of the Berlin Wall? - Discussion by Walter Hinteler
True version of Vlad Dracula, 15'th century - Discussion by gungasnake
ONE SMALL STEP . . . - Discussion by Setanta
History of Gun Control - Discussion by gungasnake
Where did our notion of a 'scholar' come from? - Discussion by TuringEquivalent
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 04/19/2024 at 09:45:20