We all know that WW1 and the Ameritard civil war were both the Napoleonic wars done wrong

We all know that WW1 and the Ameritard civil war were both the Napoleonic wars done wrong.

Could Napoleon have won WW1?

Other urls found in this thread:

books.google.com/books?id=6Jg1AQAAIAAJ&pg=RA2-PA73&lpg=RA2-PA73&dq=roman vegetius tank&source=bl&ots=N_oH6Kj0vM&sig=K8YOh_QeD0Xn3B2creKimpoQUGo&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjOhq3s7YPNAhVJRlIKHaL9AIgQ6AEINjAJ#v=onepage&q= tank&f=false
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

>We all know that WW1 [was] the Napoleonic wars done wrong.

no

Yes. It was. Napoleon used Suppresive Fire at Bagram.
OP yes he could. He'd use riflemen to screen until infantry could be brought up to charge

Napoleon also used horses. Horses were used in Afghanistan. Does it mean that the war in Afghanistan is a Napoleonic war? It does, according to your """logic""".

>poster count

>Ameritard civil war were both the Napoleonic wars done wrong

please elaborate

My thesis is essentially that from a weapons and tactics point of view the Civil War was the last Napoleonic War rather than the first modern war. I point to the similarity in weapons, tactics, and similarities between how battles were fought and wars were conducted. both Union and Confederate leaders were rather inferior to their Napoleonic counterparts, being too addicted to defensive entrenchments and not nearly aggressive enough

I'm pretty sure the weapons of the civil war were a notable leap over Napoleonic ones.

Not OP but

The Civil War has been made into such hyberbole by past and present American historians that is has been difficult to stand back and really take an objective look at it. No doubt these very same people, as evidenced by some of the fags here, will take great offense at what I'm trying to get at here. The Civil War was a poorly fought conflict. The armies were hasily created out of nothing, and as a result could do little more than blaze away at each other. The infantry tended to be held back by an inate tendnecy to fire and dig in, the cavalry was religated to doing next to nothing for the first half of the war, and the artillery was never properly employed. When we look at the conflict subjectively, its diffiuclt not to agree with Von Moltkes' assessment that the Civil War was nothing more than armed mobs roving about the woodlands of North America!
Infantry fire power has been greatly over-rated in this war. The new rifled muskets had potentially greater range, but the troops were rarely encouraged to employ it. Studies of firefights show ranges roughly similar to Napoleanic period with smoothbores! Yet the basic tendency of Americans was to stand and shot, rather than to maneauver and develope the battlefield, even though the French tactical doctrine that they based their training on emphisized battlefield movement. When advantages were gained, there was nothing to exploit success because there was no battlefield cavalry to do so. Even the famed JEB Staurt never used his 10,000 Confederate cavalry to acheive any kind of massed charge on the battlefield which might have provided decisive victory. Instead he was content to ride around the rear of the Union army making petty raids!

No. Napoleonic WARS ARE WON, something the pussyfooted Americans can't seem to do.