"Romans" v "Renaissance"

[paranoid marvin]

A bit outside your timelines Arther Ferrill in The Origins of War postulated that Alexander the Great's army could have won at Waterloo. Gunpowder was obviously the the major issue, however he balances this out with a number of points.

1. Alexander was a more daring and direct general than Napoleon. Therefore there would have been no delays at Waterloo as per some of Napolean's indecision on the day.

2. The French got with 20ft of the British line. No reason to believe that the phalanx would not have as well.

3. With armour and a forest of pikes once the Greeks closed with the British line them it would have been chaos.

He has a more detailed explanation and it sort of makes sense.

I think that if Alexander had replaced Napoleon, then for a lot of reasons there would never have been a Waterloo. Basically, the French army at this stage had no guarantee of reinforcements. The only chance of winning was by outmanoeuvring and defeating the armies of individual nations with overwhelming odds.

What they couldn't afford was what Waterloo was; a natural killing ground that would slow down and inflict significant casualties on both sides. The vast majority of casualties would be in the rout at the end of a battle, yet even though Wellington's stood firm to the point of victory, they still lost a quarter of their force. If Napoleon had overcome the redoubts and broken the infantry squares, he would have lost an equal number, if not more. Even in victory he would have been left with a severely depleted army, no guarantees of replacements, and another battle imminently afterwards.

So I would say that Alexander would have not split his forces after Ligny, and there likely would never have been a Waterloo in the first place.

If it was a case of replacing the French army and Napoleon with a Macedonian army and Alexander then the phalanx would have not been unlike the French columns, except they would not have been capable of fighting back until extremely close to Wellington's lines. With Wellington being able to bring up his artillery (no chance of being shelled by the Macedonian army), I don't think that Alexander's army would have got anywhere near the enemy lines before being slaughtered.

If you put Alexander in charge of a French army, you almost certainly have a French victory, because Waterloo was arguable one of Napoleon's worst performances. However, as I mentioned above even a French victory would have been more costly than they could afford, making it pyrrhic at best.

 

[svalbard]

The splitting of the French Army is critical. Grouchy having a pleasant country side ramble dis not help. And I agree Alexander would not have split his forces.

 

[paranoid marvin]

The splitting of the French Army is critical. Grouchy having a pleasant country side ramble dis not help. And I agree Alexander would not have split his forces.

A most bizarre decision. He should either have attacked the Prussians when retreating, or he should have pursued them away from the battlefield in the opposite direction to Wellington. Instead he gave them a few hours head start and then sent a 3rd of his forces off trying to find them.

 

[svalbard]

Was not the vagueness of the orders part of the problem. Or did Grouchy deliberately misconstrue? Whatever the reasons it was disaster of a decision.

 

[BAYLOR]

I think that if Alexander had replaced Napoleon, then for a lot of reasons there would never have been a Waterloo. Basically, the French army at this stage had no guarantee of reinforcements. The only chance of winning was by outmanoeuvring and defeating the armies of individual nations with overwhelming odds.

What they couldn't afford was what Waterloo was; a natural killing ground that would slow down and inflict significant casualties on both sides. The vast majority of casualties would be in the rout at the end of a battle, yet even though Wellington's stood firm to the point of victory, they still lost a quarter of their force. If Napoleon had overcome the redoubts and broken the infantry squares, he would have lost an equal number, if not more. Even in victory he would have been left with a severely depleted army, no guarantees of replacements, and another battle imminently afterwards.

So I would say that Alexander would have not split his forces after Ligny, and there likely would never have been a Waterloo in the first place.

If it was a case of replacing the French army and Napoleon with a Macedonian army and Alexander then the phalanx would have not been unlike the French columns, except they would not have been capable of fighting back until extremely close to Wellington's lines. With Wellington being able to bring up his artillery (no chance of being shelled by the Macedonian army), I don't think that Alexander's army would have got anywhere near the enemy lines before being slaughtered.

If you put Alexander in charge of a French army, you almost certainly have a French victory, because Waterloo was arguable one of Napoleon's worst performances. However, as I mentioned above even a French victory would have been more costly than they could afford, making it pyrrhic at best.

In this alt Pyrrhic French victory , what if Lord Wellington had ended up a casualty?

 

[paranoid marvin]

In this alt Pyrrhic French victory , what if Lord Wellington had ended up a casualty?

It's more likely that if facing defeat, Wellington's forces would have withdrawn further to the coast. But in all honesty, it was the tenacity of Blucher turning around a recently defeated army and hitting the French in the flank that won the day at Waterloo. It was the bravery and steadfastness of Wellington's men that held the French at bay until the Prussians could arrive. If Wellington had been injured or captured then Blucher would have made a worthy successor. But with the Russian, Prussian and Austrian armies (as well as a regrouping of the British forces) Napoleon would only have faced one adversary after another.

It was only ever delaying the inevitable, because a lack of support from Paris meant that the longer that Napoleon was away from the capital, the more in jeopardy he was despite any victories his army may achieved. By this stage what he lacked were Marshals to wage the war abroad whilst he kept things together at home.

 

[Toby Frost]

Ok then, let's talk about artillery, especially siege artillery. Is there anything very obvious that I need to know about loading a cannon? For instance, say I'm in a castle and I know an enemy force is approaching. When would I load the cannon? Just as they're coming into range, or a bit earlier?

 

[Brian G Turner]

Is there anything very obvious that I need to know about loading a cannon?

All I know about cannons is that cannonballs don't explode like modern artillery shells, as depicted in films - cannonballs are intended to maim multiple troops at the same time. That's why sometimes smaller cannonballs were chained together to create more of a mess, as seen in The Borgias TV series.

 

[Toby Frost]

Yes, I think you'd use different cannonballs (and probably cannons) for different targets. It seems that the use of chain-shot was regarded as bad form, at least in sieges - but that wouldn't matter when you're facing a legion of dead Romans.

I suspect that one of those small bolt-throwers would be really nasty against a formation of pikemen, and probably quicker and safer to use than a cannon. But I reckon the Romans would be at a serious disadvantage in a siege, not having gunpowder - assuming that they wanted to storm the town and not just starve it out.

 

[Toby Frost]

Perhaps it would help to state the contrary: there is no believable portrayal that would have the Romans always winning or the Renaissance-era army always winning.

That's the conclusion I've come to, and the one I wanted!

 

[paranoid marvin]

Ok then, let's talk about artillery, especially siege artillery. Is there anything very obvious that I need to know about loading a cannon? For instance, say I'm in a castle and I know an enemy force is approaching. When would I load the cannon? Just as they're coming into range, or a bit earlier?

If you're about to be surrounded, then you will likely have limited ammo and gunpowder for a cannon - so it needs to be used sparingly. And if you have cannon, the enemy will keep out of range of it or attempt to build defensive works. As soon as the castle's defenders run out of ammo for their cannon, the enemy is simply going to wheel their artillery into range of your walls and gates and that will be that.

So it has to be used as a deterrent, or if your walls are assaulted. But to be honest by the time that cannon became widely available and effective (the end of the 16th century), the age of the castle as a place of refuge over. Prior to this cannons, their ammo and gunpowder and trained crews to operate them were expensive, unreliable (King James II was killed by one when it exploded) and often ineffective.

What tended to replace them were cannon forts, so well constructed that there are many still standing today. Low-built, star shaped structures bristling with cannon that covered the coastal areas were enemy ships could land, or sail past to more valuable targets upriver. An excellent example is a Tilbury on the River Thames which guarded the approach to London.

 

[Boaz]

Looks like @Toby Frost found a conclusion before I found this discussion. Much has been discussed regarding technology and logistics. There has been some discussion on professionalism, but little on command and control. @paranoid marvin brought up the aspect of command it is here that I think lies the hope for a Roman victory or the ability of the Renaissance army to annihilate the Romans.

I think we'd all pretty much agree with marvin's statement...

Generally speaking, the later the army the more the advantage. Superior weaponry, tactics and armour.

and with Brian's statement...

The main advantage of the Roman legion IMO isn't discipline, it's the fact that no matter how many legions you wipe out, more turn up until the Romans finally win. Rome had a huge source of manpower to field multiple new legions at short notice.

A Roman army lost in space and time, could not rely upon reinforcements. (Neither could the Rennaissance army, nor any other for that matter.) When faced with technological and logistical disadvantages, the Romans could learn over time to adapt to or imitate their enemies knowledge.

I think, at a technological disadvantage, without reinforcements, and with no logistical advantage, a Roman victory would depend upon command (morale, choosing terrain, scouting, etc.) and control (communications, professionalism, supply, etc.) I envision a highly skilled commander leading the Romans to victory and immediately examining their foes equipment for benefits. I can equally see an average to poor commander following Varro, Crassus, and Varus into ignominy.