"Osprey: French Napoleonic Infantry Tactics 1792–1815" Topic

I do not know, I liked the anti-Bonapartist stance, made a great antidote to the depressing hero-worship that seems to surround him.

K

I think the continual "dis"-ing of Napoleon comes from the British belief that because they survived the Battle of Waterloo, they somehow "won" the Napoleonic Wars.

Hmm, it's popcorn time!

Paddy Griffith ?
isn´t this the guy who claims on his website that the french revolutionary wars didn´t create a military revolution, but a degeneration of the military art ?

munch munch munch….
VR
James Mattes

Tan Son Nhut, "Dis-ing"? buy yourself a dictionary for goodness sake, your critique is however I think a valid one. Ivan.

"dis" a noun: lack of respect.

Popcorn, peanuts, Cracker Jacks?

"dis" a stupid-sounding verb, short for "disrespect."

Ah. To dis or not to dis.

Pass the salt. Where are Cacadore and Dave Hollins to set these heathens straight?

I find this all a bit too dis…stressing.
Sorry, couldn't resist!
Don't you just love the English language, however it gets mangled?
I'll have some cashews please…

Stephen

Paddy, bless his cotton socks, is of course always a good, stimulating,if sometimes a contraversial read.

Never mind the popcorn, I favour something more substantial. Like a Kevlar vest and helmet.

I thought reading a book containing biases I DON'T share was part of the fun. It sharpens me up having something to react against.

"I think the continual "dis"-ing of Napoleon comes from the British belief that because they survived the Battle of Waterloo, they somehow "won" the Napoleonic Wars"

OK, I'll bite. Yes, we "survived….Waterloo" and did fairly well thereafter. As opposed to Napoleon, who "survived" Waterloo only to end up as a British prisoner on a very small island; France of course staggered through various revolutions and coups only to be defeated by Germany (how many times has that happened, again?) in the 1870s. But do tell us who you think "won" the Napoleonic Wars and why (not forgetting of course that the British aim during the entire period who to ensure that no one nation held the balance of power in Europe).

every dog has its day….empires rise and fall all the time, history proves that.

It is a continuing cycle which has been happening for thousands of years and probably will continue for thousands more.

Shane

I am that hungry sardine, too!

Bonaparte died a disgruntled irrelavent grumpy man, living out his days re-writing his last lost battle on a windy isle in the middle of the Atlantic while Paris is occupied by foreigners and his enemies the Bourbons take over, his controlled trade ideas blown to the winds.

Meanwhile, Wellington entertains Napoleon's generals, becomes a statesman: the British enter a period of grace with an empire Napoleon could only dream of, their free-trade policies spreading right across the Earth and their continuing industrial revolution and financial clout making them the first global superpower.

So lets see….. who won? Erm…….er………..
Ah darn it, I give up!

you forget one major point here cacadore, Prussia. Without them Waterloo would never of happened…end of story !

so who won ? err, ehh. ummmm the coalition won because of one signle order to fall back on Wavre.

I is extrordinary how some English people seem to forget about Prussia.

I would love to see a history teacher in London say to his/her class. "Waterloo was won because Lord Wellington pleaded for help from the Prussians of at least one Corps. Prussian General Gueisenau answered that call by first falling back to Wavre and then sending on not one but three corps by the end of the day and not a moment too soon I might add for without them we would have lost Waterloo".

But I guess that will never happen…

p.s. that should stir things up a bit.

I haven't read the book.
But was Napoleon terribly concerned with tactics?
Didn't he inherit most of the tactics used by his armies from pre & from Revolutionary practises?
This is not to belittle him: he was a military genius.
But his genius lay in Big Picture stuff, not column, line or square Or "deploy that peleton".
donald

Dear Colleagues,

Who did win the wars of Napoléon ? The Americans, may be.

The policy of the British : "Balance of Power" in Europe, control of the seas, exploitation of the colonies. This policy did succeed. But, there was then no consolidation of the European geo-polity and eco-polity. And this will lead the Geramanic people 3 times to attempt to gain this lacking consolidation. It will require the destruction of Europe and the intervention of the Americans and the Russians, partitioning Europe and occupying it, for the Europeans to finally realize a Union, a consolidation. This requiring over 150 years from Waterloo.

In these years, the Russians and the Americans may grow to consolidate their nations over large continents and many races (immigrant to the Americans, indigène to the Russians). The Americans will have the wisdom to choose a government with a free economy and strong, fair system of courts. The Russians will persist with their autocrats, their state-control and their corruption (with a change régimes in 1917 that was no change but in brand names). So, while Russia will be briefly called a super-power, she will be a hollow one and the Americans will gain an hegemonie.

Now, we will see if the Europeans in Union can truely consolidate thier continent, or if the Russians can truely form a useful government. To the extent that either may be do this, the hegemonie of the Americans will be reduced.

One may add that as early as the 1830's that the "winners" were already noted, by such as Alexis de Tocqueville. By 1890, the power of the Americans was well visible to those who did look (and their rise had been slowed 10+ years by their internal War against the slavery states).

Those who will think well of Napoléon, they will say that such a consolidation of Europe was his goal, with a United Europe governed with liberal laws, nobility by merit and fair courts. They will say that the British "viktory" was doomed to be the victory of Pyrrhus, as it did not so much decide the issues that lead to the wars of Napoléon, but more did just keep them open so that the decision of those issues could not harm the existing trading advantages of a few British merchants. And that the issues would be finally decided only by the Russians at Stalingrad and Kursk, and by the Americans at Ploesti and Normandie and by their convoys to England and Murmansk.

If Napoléon had established his Empire, do you think one in Europe today would worry on Micorsoft's monopoly or Gazprom's pipe lines ?

"munch, munch, munch"

One just cannot resist to add an opinion. But, please, dear colleagues, it is only an opinion of one man.

- un ami

well said Un ami,

I can hear the pop corn crunching from the other side of the world here in australia !!

hope there will be no commercials to interupt this splendid debate.

So what tactical innovations of Napoleon is Griffith overlooking?

Should be a softball…

NSN

Who won the wars as in "was the most decisive"?

Obviously Russia, in 1812. All that came after was just a dessert.

And Tan Son Nhut is right in that english direct contribution to Napoleonic wars was minor. The real wars were in central and eastern Europe. Wellington happened to be the overall commander (if Prussians agree) the one day that Napoleon was unlucky, but that day would have come one day or another.

Obviously you could argue about english money and spanish ulcer, as you could argue about US lend lease to Soviet Union in WWII, there's a thread on it in WWII Discussion.

***

Who won the war as in "who profited most"?

Europe, as in Nationalist and Republican movements. 1820s, 1830, 1848, the birth of Germany and Italy, the French Republic, up to Marx, all owe more to Napoleon than to French Revolution.

Just my opinion, back to popcorn.

"I is extrordinary how some English people seem to forget about Prussia."

Shane, you and I surely know that most Nappy enthusiasts worth their salt know that Waterloo was a victory precisely because it WAS a team effort from the Anglo/Allied army and the the Prussians. I understood that since reading "A Near Run Thing" as a lad. I would argue that those that do not know generally aren't even that interested in Napoleonic history, and probably would not care so much one way or the other anyway.

Everyone has biases, including just about every poster here. The truth usually lies somewhere in between. That modern day British and Germans would concentrate on their own nation's efforts is really no surprise.

Disregarding the "we won, no you didn't" turn of the thread, any comments out there about the substance of the book in question, apart from bias? Is it worth getting or not?

Napoleon armoured his heavy cavalry and used them to make frontal attacks against enemy positions. This was a tactical revolution in cavalry use and I haven't been able to discern anyone's hand in it other than Napoleon's.

Everyone has biases, including just about every poster here. The truth usually lies somewhere in between. That modern day British and Germans would concentrate on their own nation's efforts is really no surprise.

- English is the prevalent language in the world
- wargaming as a mass hobby was born and is prevalent in the UK (and US)
- historiography (?) of our period is prevalently english language.

Most of us started wargaming with Quarrie or Featherstone, learned our period with the works of Chandler, Haythornthwaite and the Osprey booklets, play rules by english (or american) designers.

What this means is that also wargamers and hobby historians were brought up with an english bias. Well in the US it's probably mixed with French and Napoleon worship (see Kiley ;-) ) but they too have been heavily influenced by english authors.

Fact is that Peninsula and Waterloo still are the most played napoleonic battles, even if their importance was marginal (ok, Waterloo was the closing mark, but still).

Fact is that myriads of rulesets give magical powers to french and english units.

Fact is that thanks to the efforts of people like Dave Hollins, Peter Hofschröer or Alex Mikhaberidze we are just now starting to understand other Powers of the time.

"Who won the wars as in "was the most decisive"?

Obviously Russia, in 1812. All that came after was just a dessert."

Hmm

I would take issue with this. In the first half of the 1813 campaign Napoleon is winning, his Empire in Germany is intact (if a little shaky) but the Russo-Prussians lose both major battles and show no signs of overcoming him.

The sea-change seems to me to be the armistice and the entry of Austria. Until that point it looks as though he could still hang on, force a compromise peace with Russia (a second Tilsit)and crush the Prussians. After the armistice, which allows the allies to gather their strength, and the entry of Austria, which provides a totally new and decisive strategic dimension (forcing Napoleon to campaigns in Italy and on the Danube) plus extra men, it then looks bleak for him (although never impossible).

K

Correct me if I'm wrong but Napoleon gave us the concept of Field Ambulances aka Mobile Hospitals and a Judical system that is still used in many countries around the world, just toname two.

Chips and salsa,anyone? Condottiere, I look forward to reading Paddy's book on French Tactics. Here in the colonies we find it difficult to get on board with the British perspective on the "Napoleonic" wars. Though at one time we felt relatively secure on the far side of the Atlantic, that is no longer the case. We had only recently thrown back the British invasion of 1775, so it's not easy to see you as the defenders of Liberty. Napoleon and the French armies on the other hand…for a time atleast. We in the colonies are stilled a bit miffed over the British burning our capitol, invading at New Orleans, and behaving like pirates on the high seas. Weren't their own citizens behind the cause enough to fill your own navy? Egypt liberated? India liberated? Compared to the armies of Russia, Austria and Prussia, Wellington and his band of ruffians appear like a horde of opportunistic Tatars (no disrect meant to any Tatars that may be reading this thread).

Urselius,
About armoured cavalry attacks against enemy positions, read on Frederick´s heavy cavalry (Seven Years war battles).

"We had only recently thrown back the British invasion of 1775"

What on earth are you talking about?

Tan Son Hut

It is probably worth asking the Native Americans and Blacks about liberty too, but I really think this is straying a touch off-topic…

K

My apologies to Condottiere for high-jacking this thread. I think it's the unique and mutually beneficial relationship that the American Colonies developed with France during our Revolution that makes it difficult to then view Napoleon as the bad guy later. The British did try to militarily occupy the Colonies, in the belief that we were errant subjects of the Crown. The British had certainly invested a great deal in the years leading up to their "invasion of 1775". To me, the French Revolution and the rise of Napoleon was a good thing. The wars against the French and Napoleon were directed toward reinstalling the Bourbons. A bad thing. The British, by providing the financial support for the opponents of the Revolution, were sleeping with, if not making the bed, of the bad guys. A bad thing. IMHO.

Tam Son Hut

Any German Nationalist of the period, would heartily disagree with you, of course…Besides, the USA and the Revolutionary French government actually went to war over privateering, so was this mutually beneficial too?

K

Obviously, ours was a rocky relationship with newly founded French Republic and Empire. Cheers

"The British did try to militarily occupy the Colonies, in the belief that we were errant subjects of the Crown."

But you were, at least legally…politically it is more questionable but the motives of the colonists who took up arms was neither uniform or predictable. You are also forgetting the Tories of course. Also, a country is well within its rights to station troops on its own territory, hardly an invasion.

In the meantime it is worth recalling that the French declared war on Austria, Prussia, Britain, the Netherlands, Piedmont-Savoy and so on. Theirs was hardly a revolution based on peace and tranquility, rather diverting inbternal dissension into external aggression. Equally the opinion of some of the aristocratic figures on the Allied side, like Brunswick and Coburg, were heavily influenced by the enlightenment and the earlier revolutionary period gathered a great deal of sympathy from them, their opposition was not immediate, but gradual.

For the Brits, well, they were victims of a DoW, not perpetrators, although I am pretty sure that many relished the opportunity of kicking the old enemy when they were down. Not sure how much of this was directly related to restoring the Bourbons, but if you believed in legal government, however badly behaved it was, the options were limited. If, however, you believed in revolutions who knew where it would stop.

I am still intrigued as to how the conflict between the US and France was 'mutually beneficial'.

K

The relationship I was referring to was that which existed during the American Revolution, resulting in the French coming to our assistance, to the detriment of the British.

I is extrordinary how some English people seem to forget about Prussia.

You truly is.
I'm an Englishman who never forgets the Prussians.
I remember every penalty shootout defeat like yesterday.

-The wars against the French and Napoleon were directed toward reinstalling the Bourbons.-

Certainly true in 1815, possibly true in 1792, but in between? Can you be more specific about these wars?

When I think of Napo the field commander, I think of the principle of mass as developed after 1805. Massed columns of cuirassiers and massed batteries were a Napoleonic innovation. I believe the idea of massed infantry had already developed in the 1790's.

I guess you could argue that Napo contributed least in the area of infantry field tactics than in any other area of warfare.

Nappy was a big scale thinker , a control fanatic and an artillerist, the most unlikely person to deal with the small details of infantry tactics.
The voltigeurs were a drawback and arguably more an idea to expand the recruitment base of the army and reduce minimum size requirements for infantry. His monster columns were critisized by nearly everyone, even jomini.
Nobody did copy ordre mixte.
most positive innovations attributed to him were actually innovations of the revolution, which he could handle masterly and carry into new dimensions operationally and strategically, no doubt about this.
But it should be quite easy to write a book on 19 century infantry tactics without ever mentioning the great man.

Still he was a great soldier psychologist which did have a massive influence on the way troops did behave on the field. Its difficult to imagine old Fritz or Wellington awarding a battlefield decoration to a common soldier, ancien regime armies did not have these things, just running the gauntlet and flogging to "motivate" the common man, who was considered as scum at worst and a brain dead automat at best.
Nappy did introduce the legion d´honneur, which was actually the first chance for an individual soldier to earn a reward for his bravery on the field.
It was him who made everybody part of the big drama, not just the noble leaders.

Vischussur: I believe it was Napoleon's chief surgeon Larrey who introduced the field ambulance. Besides some show visits to his troops in the hospital, many feel that Napoleon was very indifferent to the medical and surgical treatment of his troops. It was a handful of talented French army surgeons who accomplished what they did, probably in spite of Napoleon, rather than because of him.

The big ones at Wagram(Mac Donald) and Waterloo(d´Erlon) and a few other occasions.
Jomini for example praises the "small column" which for him was the bataillon column.

Agree on Jomini, but the monster columns were not so succesful. remains the question what else could be done on a field where both sides had over 20000 men for every kilometer of battlefield frontage.
Nappy was a veteran of 40 battles and did win most of them, its all not so simple.

Oh Dear, once again we are back to the same tired old line about Wellington and the British army being larlgely irrelevant to the allied victory at Waterloo and that Wellington claimed all the glory disepit the fact that 99.99% of his army was German etc etc blah blah…

Guys has anyone ACTUALLY READ THE BLIMMIN WATERLOO DISPATCH! Please Please get hold of a copy and read the damn thing.The first, and I mean the very first paragraph written by Wellington is a peon of praise to Blucher and the Prussian Army for saving the day! For god's sake what more could the man have done to avert all your blethering about how the English had nothing to do with Napoleon's defeat. (Apart from the minor detail of paying for 20 years of continual warfare against him. Minor detail I know…)

So, the jury would appear to be out on the Griffith book, hurtful sarky remarks notwithstanding.

Jomini is all wet and a putz to boot. He was a staff officer, and not a very good one. He wore a uniform for years and never really became a soldier. He was not close to being a genius and his character was at best iffy. He was a talented writer, but some of his writing was not his and he claimed credit for events at which he was not present. He was an incompetent military governor in Russia in 1812.

Macdonald's 'column' was not a column but a large hollow oblong with three sides which was designed to fight on their sides as it penetrated the Austrian line at Wagram. It shattered the Austrian first line and was checked by the second. It was supported by Lauriston's large battery but was not effectively supported by the heavy cavalry in the same sector. As it attacked, the battle was already won as Davout was flanking the Austrians on the French right, defeating the Austrian left who had parity in numbers and Davout attacking uphill. All Macdonald really had to do was attack and it was game over.

D'Erlon and his officers weren't stupid, and I don't believe that it was a misunderstanding of any orders or language on how they formed for their attack. The formation was too big and unwieldy, but it is usually forgotten that it did reach and penetrate the allied line. The firefight there before the cavalry charge was huge and vicious. What probably happened is that d'Erlon was attampting to get more than enough troops into the allied position to swamp it. The French actually thought it had succeeded. That wasn't the first time in a major battle commanded by Napoleon that a corps commander had attacked with an awkward formation and it didn't work. Ney's main attack at Friedland in 1807 failed also. His two divisions were defeated and hustled back into the Forest of Sortlack by a Russian cavalry charge. I doubt Napoleon either suggested or approved d'Erlon's formation at Waterloo. He did approve of Macdonald's at Wagram.

Sincerely,
Kevin

Regarding D'Erlon, Kevin, what suggests that Napo didn't approve of the formation used at Waterloo. Given that this was supposed to be the battle-winning main French thrust, I would assume that Napo reviewed the arrangements. Damn well should've, anyway!

The larger question re D'Erlon is why the beejesus no-one on the French side anticipated a cavalry counter-stroke from the Allies, as actually happened.

D'Erlon knew what fighting British INFANTRY was all about and had learned enough to put an extra-large number of muskets in the firing line PLUS a mass of men behind for more staying power. So far, great! Repetition of the French failures at Albuera and Busaco could be thus avoided. But didn't anyone figure out that the formation would be very vulnerable to a quick cavalry charge??

I didn't say that Napoleon didn't approve of the formation, but that he didn't approve it, in that I haven't seen any evidence that he was consulted about it. French corps commanders were put in command of their corps and were expected to command it, not look for approval from Napoleon every time they attempted to do something. I have no idea whether or not Napoleon would have said 'OK, good-go ahead' to d'Erlon. He assigned him the mission of the main effort, and it was up to d'Erlon to accomplish the mission. He nearly did, but the formation was too big and unwieldy.

The cavalry charge was part of that inexplicable tenth principle of war: s*&t happens. You pay you money and you take your chance. That's why it's called the art of war.

However, it is certain that Ney had a lot to do with d'Erlons formation and it does remind me somewhat of what Ney had done at Friedland. Napoleon did entrust Ney with the main attack, and he muffed it. I would definitely blame Napoleon for this and Nord would have been fortunate if Ney hadn't shown up for duty. He blew Quatre Bras as he had blown the envelopment at Bautzen in 1813 (aided, by the way, by his incompetent chief of staff, Jomini). Ney is also the one who launched the cavalry attacks at Waterloo, and when Napoleon saw what he had done he remarked that they were an hour too early.

Sincerely,
Kevin