From what I've studied, it seems like ACW organization and tactics aren't very similar and "Napoleonic tactics against modern weaponry" seems to be a bit of a popular misconception or meme (i.e. like "Spartans were the best warriors in all of history!"), or at least an overstatement. Or I suppose "Napoleonic tactics" is just used as layman shorthand for "soldiers shooting at each other in tightly packed lines" without a full appreciation of how nuanced Napoleonic combat could actually be. Here are some of my specific points so you can specifically address what/why I get right and wrong:

• As I've read in Jac Weller's Wellington at Waterloo, French army corps were intended to be combined-arms formations capable of acting independently but also together, with the overall army commander (i.e. Napoleon himself) having direct commander over more specialized assets (such as an artillery or cavalry corps) to reinforce their subordinates. This style of organization was partially copied by the Prussians; their armies used corps, but they tended to act like separate armies than parts of an army that could act independently. I haven't read anything of this kind of thing in ACW battles: organization seems a lot more haphazard with brigades, regiments, divisions, and so on all mixed together. While corps exist, they seem to be almost all infantry with some supporting artillery if available, rather than an organic combined-arms formation.
• In addition to combined-arms organization, I read in John Keegan's The Face of Battle that although infantry was the primary force of Napoleonic armies, there was also some emphasis on combined-arms tactics. For example, the approach of cavalry would force infantry into defensive squares, after which mobile horse artillery would be brought up to blast holes in the squares.
• Going off the idea that ACW armies aren't combined-arms to the extent Napoleonic ones were, I read in Alexander Bevin's How the South Could Have Won the Civil War that cavalry and artillery played less of a role in ACW armies than Napoleonic ones, mostly due to the enhanced range of infantry rifles over muskets. He argues that the range of the Minie-ball rifle outranged canister shot by artillery, precluding the effective Napoleonic tactic of rolling up cannons just outside of enemy musketry and blasting them with canister (John Keegan mentions this tactic as well, when he talks about mobile horse artillery accompanying cavalry charges). He also makes the argument that rifled cannons and explosive shells weren't advanced enough to inflict much damage at long range either. Likewise, he uses the enhanced range of rifles to say that since infantry could shoot at cavalry at much longer ranges, cavalry's main battlefield role was obsolete.
• With regards to infantry specifically, there seems to be far less variety of infantry formations and tactics in the ACW than Napoleonic era. With heavy cavalry gone from the battlefield, I've never read of infantry squares in any ACW battle. Likewise, I get the impression that ACW infantry fought primarily in line formation, since French-style deep columns have never been mentioned in any book/video/presentation I've ever seen on the ACW. I am aware of some skirmishing incidents (such as the First Day of Gettysburg), but ACW skirmishes seem to be preliminary or independent actions, as opposed to the Napoleonic era where skirmishing is a constant component of set-piece battles. Jac Weller argued that French skirmishers (and deep columns) were essential to the Revolution's early victories, and that the European nations copied the French with specially trained light companies in their regiments or independent units like the 95th Rifles. They would screen the main infantry forces, beat back the enemy light infantry, and harass enemy formations all throughout the battle. I haven't heard of such military concepts in the ACW.
• Lastly, the ACW has a much greater focus on fortifications and trenches in battles. This is opposed to the Napoleonic era, in which field fortifications were looked upon with suspicion at best. Bevin quotes Napoleon himself as hating them for disorganizing troops and making men too afraid to leave, while Weller describes Wellington as not a fan either, since static defenses pinned troops in place whereas Wellington's style of defense was based on the ability to maneuver reserves and launch counterattacks.

I was just wondering since i was looking up basic greetings in European Countries and found out Ireland has its own language.

Do every Irish citizen speak it? If so why not mainly speak it?

(I hope I don't violate the rules) Why do so many treaties have the same name? (e.g. Treaty of Geneva, Treaty of Paris) Is there any importance as to why these few specific places held such significance? I know the only way to distinguish them is by the year it was signed to differentiate it but aside from that I just don't know why they all wanna use the same name.

Is it reasonable to say that Napoleon's campaign was a failure without him having suffered a military defeat? How many soldiers did he lose (out of how many)? (The same question about the Russians.) Which nationalities were most represented in his army? Which would be the most immediate consequences of his failure? How did his contemporaries react to it? Was it immediately perceived as his major defeat which had proved his hitherto perceived invincibility wrong? Did it crush him personally? Did it bring about his downfall? How major of a damage had he nevertheless inflicted on Russia: economically, demographically and so forth? Thanks.

Those are all New World fruits if I remember correctly, and it seems to me from anecdotal experience that they never use lime but use lemon all the time. Italian cooking also uses tomatoes more than anything, another New World fruit.

Hi everyone I’m a student and I might possibly be looking into studying history or politics later in life wether for enjoyment or for a career path.

American Revolution It isn’t a stretch to believe that the American Revolution’s direct cause was started by arguably a group of terrorists who would tar and feather tax collectors in New England as well as other violent protests against taxation.

Then after the battles of Lexington and Concord the idea for independence grew into a much larger war with guerrilla fighting and even slightly professional armies led by George Washington and even General Rochambeau who had taught a group of dirty angry colonists how to fight a the world’s most powerful military.

The Product Of The American Revolution The founding father’s were incredibly intelligent men who utilized all of Western Civilization’s philosophy from Ancient Greece to most importantly the political enlightenment. They could draw from Plato’s Ship of State, Locke’s three natural rights, Montesquieu’s Separation of Powers all of these works were at their disposal. My conclusion on the American Revolution is that a bunch of angry drunk bastards from Boston ignited a movement that gave the opportunity for Thomas Paine, Ben Franklin and Alexander Hamilton (my personal favorites) to create the world’s first modern democracy that was designed to stand the test of time... “the American experiment” was successful.

The French Revolution Let me establish that the conditions that led French and American revolutions were strikingly similar which makes it hard to think why two twin revolutions would end up in completely different conclusions.

•King George III’s inability to sign the Olive Branch petition which would let colonists have representation in parliament would have prevented the American Revolution. This is similar to how the French peasantry were unable to be represented properly in the Estate’s General.

•The National Assembly = The continental congress

•The Bourgeois Militia = Continental Army

•Tar and feathering tax collectors = Head’s of French nobility on a pike

•Both England and France were in debt although France’s was much more severe they both raised taxes to pay off the 7 years war.

•The most important similarity both wanted the same things. French peasants famously wanted ”Liberté, égalité, fraternité” Liberty, equality and fraternity while the Americans of course wanted No Taxation without representation and Give me liberty or give me death. I shouldn’t even have to explain how the American Revolution helped inspire the French Revolution and how they were both fighting for Enlightenment ideals.

•Thomas Paine and Lafayette both left the Colonies and advocated for the same things they had fought for in the United States.

Aftermath of the French Revolution So how was it that a revolution marketing itself as freedom from oppression and equality for all toppled over into the reign of terror? Why did the French people who hated tyrants let Napoleon who literally was proclaimed the heir to the Roman Emperor able to gain power?

conclusion The French and American Revolutions are perfect science experiments. In a science experiment you must test a variable on two same groups. In this case why was the variable: a revolution against a tyrant fueled by enlightenment ideals that was tested in two countries with the same conditions end up have incredibly different results?

Thanks so much for reading all of this I tried keeping it short. I appreciate all of you taking time out of your day to answer this.

Trading with their sedentary neighbors? Pillaging them? Growing crops themselves?

Or was this just a creative liberty taken by the filmmakers?

When all slaves were freed in the US, what did they do to survive? I’m guessing many didn’t own any land or have any money. Did most continue working for the same person who formerly owned them, but now receiving a salary? Where did they live?

I've recently read Gates of Fire, Tides of War, and the Afghan Campaign, and was curious how well these novels follow the facts that we know about the time period. I'm guessing that most of the dialog involving real people (e.g. Leonidas, Alcibiades, Alexander) is fictional, but is it something that they might have said? Would soldiers in Alexander's army have some means of communicating with home (I imagine they didn't have paper, but maybe wax tablets or something)? Does the experience of the protagonist in the Syracuse naval battle match what we know about marine combat of the period?

I'm mostly interested in a general evaluation of the books. These questions are just examples of things I was wondering about.

This is more of a book/author recommendation request than anything. I’m just beginning to return to school after ten years off and I’m going to major in history. I have my first course this summer on western civilization and I plan to write my first paper on class structures and struggles in the Roman Republic, especially right before the rise of Caesar. So I’d like to read a book or some articles on the topic and I hope I’ll be able to get some recommendations on titles or authors. Thanks. I’m looking forward to reading more about the topic but I really have no idea where to start! I hope it’s alright to post this request here. If there’s a better subreddit, I’d appreciate the help. Thanks again!