What is the best flames of war army or the cheapest?

Would a Napoleonic Army be able to defeat a US Civil war army?

• I would like to know who would win in a battle between a Napoleonic French Army (Early 1800s) and a Civil War Union Army (1860s). In this scenario both armies are the exact same size, however composition of the armies can be different (e.g one can have more artillery but less cavalry than the other). Technology and weapons would be what they typically had during a major battle in their eras. I know a Union Army would have rifled muskets so more range and possibly better artillery, but wouldn't a French Napoleonic Army be better drilled and I have no doubt a they would have far superior cavalry. So who has a higher chance of winning?

• Answer:

  The ACW army, without a doubt. Here's why: The cap-&-ball mechanism of the ACW-era rifled musket was faster to load than a Napoleonic flintlock. (Not by much, but when you're talking about musketry, a difference of even one round per minute is decisive.) It's also more reliable, and less vulnerable to wet weather. (the cap-&-ball mechanism was actually invented in Napoleonic times - but they didn't have the industrial factory system to produce them in useful numbers.) The minie ball fired by the ACW rifled musket caused just as much wound damage as a conventional musket ball, with longer range and higher accuracy. Repeating weapons such as revolvers, Spencer and Henry rifles, and breech-loading weapons such as the Sharps cavalry carbine would have been very effective against Napoleonic troops firing three rounds per minute. The Napoleonic army would, without a doubt, have far more cavalry... but a proportion of these would be heavy cavalry - Cuirassiers and Carabiniers - and impact cavalry such as lancers. These troops would be of little use, and horribly vulnerable on an ACW battlefield. By the time of the ACW, cavalry had developed into raiding, scouting and skirmishing forces, and more often than not fought dismounted anyway. Nobody tried to move mass cavalry across a battlefield where the enemy all had rifles. The days of impact cavalry were over (except in Colonial empires, where they were fighting against tribesmen.) Entire heavy cavalry brigades would simply have been mown down. The command structure of a Napoleonic army would, on balance, have been better than its ACW equivalent. Promotion in Napoleon's army was based on merit - it was far ahead of its time in this respect. They would also be veterans - they would certainly have served in the French Revolutionary wars. The officers of an ACW army would include professionals, 'Gentlemen volunteers' who had been given officer rank because of their social status, those wealthy enough to have 'raised' their own regiment, political appointments, and junior officers elected by their men. Towards the end of the war, especially on the Federal side, there would have been more professionals - but it was still a mish-mash. The ACW artillery would be far superior, in both guns and ammunition. A Napoleonic army would have the best artillery of it's period, but still couldn't match the technology of the 1860's. Rifled cannon, breech-loading cannon, siege artillery up to 300lb-ers, 13-inch mortars, mountain guns, explosive shells, timed fuses, and even early machine-guns, such as the Gatling, Williams, Agar, Billinghurst and Vandenburgh. Another huge difference would be logistics. The question isn't 'regiment vs. regiment' or even 'corps vs. corps'... it's 'Army vs. Army'. At Army level, you would have to factor in that the ACW army can move troops and supplies by railroad (and on water, by steamship) and they can communicate instantly by telegraph. No Napoleonic army can match that. Hope that helps!