"Main differences between 7YW and Napoleonics tactics?" Topic

To an outsider, trying to decide which period to wargame, there appears to be little difference between 7YW and Napoleonic periods(European theatre).

Both periods appear to offer large armies, brilliant uniforms and a balance between foot, horse & artillery.

What are the main characteristics of each period?
Are there any advantages of choosing one period over the other?

Napoleonics generally allows you a wider range of tactical options. Units are more flexible; artillery is much more useful.

But Napoleonics is also a black hole. The armies are huge. You will NEVER have enough figures. By contrast, SYW presents you with smaller battles and armies, and a much more "do-able" project for the collector and painter.

Well, the battles are usually smaller in the SYW while the Napoleonic can get to massive in size. The SYW is much more linear than Napoleonic especially the later Napoleonic battles. Artillery tactics were different, less use of massive batteries. Cavalry tactics were different as well, since most nations still had their cav in a 3 deep formation while by the time of the Napoleonic period cavalry was in a 2 deep formation (except the early Russians IIRC). The organization structure was different as by this time you'll find the beginnings of more permanent military formations. I'm sure others can give a lot more detail but I would suggest some reading on the periods to help see the differences. The similarities are with the weapons used and some may it might end there. I personally believe that the SYW has MUCH prettier uniforms than the Napoleonic but that is just my opinion.

well for a gaming and painting perspective the uniforms are very diffrent, so look at pics and simply decide which type of uniforms you like the most and would enjoy to paint

I honestly can't see much diffrence between War of the Spanish Succession, 7 year war and american revolution, there are offcourse lots of diffrence but the stile is the same, the jackets have the same look to them, while the uniforms of the Napoleonic era looks like nothing seen before

SYW was about linear tactics. Units essentially formed up in line and advanced. Very little maneuver on the battlefield once deployed.

During the Revolutionary and Napoleonic periods the French changed this at the tactical level with more battlefield maneuver once engaged. Where Napoleon really excelled was at the operational level with his division and corps organizations that allowed him to quickly maneuver his army against his enemies' flanks which led to a more fluid battle.

Also, better artillery and limbers also allowed artillery to play a larger war on Napoleonic battlefields which relied on more maneuver -- the artillery was better able to keep up.

Of course this is a bit simplistic. Frederick the Great also did a good job maneuvering against his enemies' flanks but his organizational and tactical systems was not as fluid was was later the norm in the Napoleonic Wars.

BTW, the earlier warning about the large number of figures required for the Napoleonic period varies depending on the level of war you want to fight and the rules set you want to use.

Usually, but of course not always, the SYW infantryman was better trained and diciplined than the massed conscript armies of the Napoleonic times. This allowed SYW infantry to avoid the Square more often against opposing cavalry attacks than Napoleonic infantry. SYW is usually line infantry vs line infantry, heavy Cavalry vs Heavy Cavalry, and light inf and cav all having seperate battles, with artillery playing mostly a secondary role, but not always. Napoleonic combat is much more a mixed arms tactical adventure, with dramatically more mobile arty, advanced use of good light infantry, and grand tactical use of massed cavalry and high quality reserve infantry formations to exploit local victories all along the battle line. The brigade, division and other higher formations were first utilized in the earlier periods in an "ad hoc" manner. In the Napoleonic Armies they became much more standardized ideas!

I prefer the oddities of the 7YW to allow some really varied uses of troops compared to the Napoleonic period.

The 7YW is the first major war where all troops had iron ramrods, all marched in step. Much more precise drill and maneuver in line. Column when used were usually battalions in three-deep line, one behind the other.

Horse artillery first appears in this war, and is not especially numerous, even at the end.

Austrian field artillery was the best in Europe, and numerous, but all the armies were "plagued" by the light (usually 3-pounder) field guns attached to the battalions. I don't think any nation had soldiers hauling the guns, making it difficult to maneuver when the civilian contractors run away! Frederick had little respect for his artillery – he was poor at math and science – and tinkered with them too much, developing comparatively ineffective guns. The French artillery was antiquated, too heavy, too many heavy artistic junk on the gun barrels, and artillery not specifically made for the field. Also, the French did not use howitzers unless it captured them from the enemy! Frederick did appreciate the howitzer, and often assigned them to the line infantry battalions.

The Austrians seemed to fight to protect their guns, much like the Federal troops in the ACW. The Austrians were also rarely caught in the open field, prefering the defensive on ground of their own choosing.

Prussian cavalry was probably the best battlefield cavalry ever to ride, and probably won over half of Frederick's victories. Prussian Hussars were adept at the battlefield charge in tight ranks, and also in pursuit of a broken enemy. They became quite good at scouting as well by the end of the war. The Hungarian Hussars were essentially ineffective on the battlefield in the charge (although some units did good service at Kolin). They were most adept at keeping the Prussians "blind" as to the movements and presence of the Austrian army.

Prussian infantry was superior to most in musketry, and able to move forward and fire at the same time. Arguably the best infantry in the world at the start of the war, but badly depleted by Frederick in his wasteful attacks early in the war.

Light infantry offers unique scenarios in this war, but in the Napoleonic period were little better than the line except for the British 43rd Food (Monmouthshire Light Infantry) and the 52nd (Oxford and Bucks Light Inf). The Austrian Grenz (Croat) infantry were exceptional light infantry, better in the War of the Austrian Succession because of their use of the long Croat musket. In the 7YW they were often parcelled out in small units to every formation, reducing their value in working en masse in rough terrain – though the gamer can employ them that way. They also had the habit of departing for home in whole units when their enlistments expired! I understand that Grenz infantry in the Napoleonic Wars were still less effective as light infantry. The Prussian FreiKorps battalinons were junk, but effective when supported by regular infantry, cavalry and guns. Poor on detached service. Oddly, the Austrian grenz and hussar units were often deployed on their own far from the main army, and often worsted by the Prussians.

The French may have been the only army to have grenadier and chasseur companies in each line infantry battalion – 48 men each in two companies our of 16 in the battalion. They served with their battalions under some generals, but were brigaded away from their battalions under Marshal De Broglie, France's most capable General. Poor leadership was common to the French in this war.

I enjoy the 7YW period.

GdeP

In a nutshell the armies of the SYW were in the main the private possession of the monarch and a professional force. The tactics were mainly linear with few complexities such as skirmishers and mixed formations. These factors make the period (IMHO) much more straight forward to wargame than the Napoleonic period. Also if you read Charge! by Peter Young you will be forever enthralled by tricones!

There are a lot of good comments so far. One thing about light infantry and their tactics; in the SYW they would fight on the perifery of the battle field (raids, serving as advance guards, etc) whereas on the Napoleonic battlefield, light infantry became an integral part of regular battlefield tactics.

Staff organization was another big advance created during the Napoleonic era. This allowed for the use of ever larger armies. There was little in the way of a permanent staff organization in the SYW and as others have said, no formalized brigades, divisions and corps.

Both periods are enjoyable and I have forces for both. One factor in your decision might be uniforms. In general:

1. The uniforms of the mid-18th C. (the SYW) changed very little. Slight differences are unimportant.

2. In the Napoleonic era, there could be as many as three significant uniform changes from 1789-1815. For many this makes no difference. Others may think differently. The point is, if you raise 1815 soldiers and someone says let's do 1805, there are larger uniform differences with which to contend.

Bon Chance,
Bill

PS In general I think most Napoleonic gamers will want more miniatures than SYW gamers. Not always true. This is a generalization but it's there. Also Napoleonic forces using columns of attack use less linear space and for some reason we all like to fill up the empty places with something -- like more miniatures – meaning more cost and time to get going.

@ Paris Guard

"but all the armies were "plagued" by the light (usually 3-pounder) field guns attached to the battalions"

But Napoleon brought this back. Many battalions that marched into Russia (Polish as well as French) had captured Austrian 3lb guns on strength as battalion pieces, hardly plagued…

As an aside the Spanish had Brass Ramrods from 1729…plus water proof lock covers and tarpaulin muzzle covers too.

Just FYI

K

Agree with most of above.

The C18 has been called a period of 'limited wars of unlimited Monarchs'. The C19 saw the reintroduction of unlimited warfare with larger armies fighting for the very survival of states – or so it seemed at the time.

On a strategic level, the move away from baggage train to forage and the introduction of a corps system meant bigger battles and more strategic flexibility.

On the battlefield, less apparent differences. The square was one. So it depends on what scale of action you are looking at to a degree. Certainly on a wargame table at say division of brigade level, there may not be many tactical differences apparent, so pick the one you like most.

There is almost NOTHING that can be found in organisation and tactics during the Napoleonic period that cannot be found in at least embryonic form during the SYW, but that during the SYW saw only very limited use.

One of the key aspects was the approach to battles and sieges.

In the 18th Century a General may look forward to fighting 3 or 4 battles in his career but literally dozens of sieges. The 'destruction of the enemy army' was rarely an objective. Instead the objective was based on fixed points like towns, useful bargaining chips at the peace table, with a far greater emphasis on maneouvre than fighting battles. Look at Traun's campaign against Frederick in 1744; a terrific victory for the Austrians yet not a single large battle.

Battles were risky. You could not control the outcome. Sieges were based on more 'scientific' principles, something again likely to appeal to your 18th Century commander. So battles are smaller, rarer and are usually found in the vicinity of a siege with the covering army clashing with a relief force.

In other words try and win your campaign without risky battles, keep as many people alive as you can (on both sides) and obey all the rules and conventions.

Except when fighting heathens like the Turk.

K

I think the SYW Uniforms are great but for a tactical game on the tabletop Napoleonics has far more options depending on the level of the game. In the SYW lines of infantry marched up to each other and blazed away. As a Napoleonic general using rules like General de Brigade, you have to decide which formation to use, line, column or square, do you deploy your light companies and so on. Best wishes, Simon

On a strategic level, the move away from baggage train to forage and the introduction of a corps system meant bigger battles and more strategic flexibility.

I am not totally sure that the reason after the bigger armies of Napoleonic times were this one. The supply systems didn't differ so much: in both periods foraging was common; also the Napoleonic armies continued to use baggage trains -Napoleon militarised the French train in 1807 if I recall correctly; and the British one was capital to supply Wellington's forces in the Peninsula-; … probably, the political and administrative transformation experienced between the SYW and the Revolution, was more decisive in the long term, as it allowed for a more efficient allocation of resources: for instance, the amount of taxable land experimented a dramatic hiccup between 1789 and 1805.

The French also benefited of the conquest of new lands -higher revenues and population- and of the new way to deal with lesser powers. For example, meanwhile the king of Wurttemberg in 1750's was paid for mobilising his army, in Napoleonic times he paid his own army and lent it to the Grande Armee to be used as Napoleon wished, i.e. the Emperor acquired 10,000 men for free -well, not actually, as he rose Ludwig to royal status and gave to him new lands-
Regards

7YW uniforms were much heavier when wet ;-p

there is a difference between the gentlemen generals/officers of the 7years war and those of the product of the revolution. big difference. in the 7 years war for the most part the men were of the same social class who could and did fight for different armies at times. i love both periods. the gamers are even different. both have a panache and sweep of color on the field not to be seen again. i like the attitude in the 7 years war of the gentleman like conduct for the most part and the gamers are a very good club of men. but i love the napoleonic period too even though one must have a vandamme around. well its true he had the manners of a goat even if he fought well lol.

As stated earlier, the Napoleonic wars saw much larger armies. Armies in the SWY rarely exceeded 50-60,000. During the Napoleonic wars individual corps could sometimes reach this number. Luzten saw some 200,000 French fight some 300,000 Allies. Tactical rules for the later period would be more complex too.

Battles at the end of the SYW pointed towards things that would be commonplace in the later wars, like more extensive use of lights, armies marching in more than one column, etc. But SYW tactics are generally more simple and standardized.

Hmm, Leipzig was the huge battle. Lutzen saw some 120-150 French fight some 80-90,000 Allies.

Wagram saw 150,000 French vs. 120,000 Austrians. These are all very rough estimates, just to show how much larger they were than SYW battles, where 80,000 would be a truly enormous force.