"How good were the French infantry facing Brits at Waterloo?" Topic

I like collecting different makes, I also like to then assign the "best" figures to the best units historically and the less impressive figures to the less impressive units!

For the British at Waterloo for example I would, off the top of my head, put the units in something like this order:
A – 2nd & 3rd Guards, all 3 kilted regiments, 52nd, 95th
B – 1st Guards, 28th, 32nd, 40th, 51st, 71st
C – 1st, 23rd, 27th, 44th
D – 30th, 33rd, 69th, 73rd, 14th

this is based not so much on how they did on the day but rather their levels of experience and general reputation. I'd rather not get bogged down in debating the above, I'd happily be talked into changing most of them up or down a level, it's just an example.

NOW…what I'm after is something similar for the French infantry coming at them. I have NO idea about the different French infantry regiments, and indeed even if it is possible to catagorise them in the above way or whether they were more of a similar standard to each other.

Any French experts out there can help me? I'm only after the ones vs Wellington not those that fought the Prussians.

This'll be good. Popcorn?

Extra butter, please.

At the level of granularity I usually play at I rate pretty much all the French infantry as 'average' apart from elements of the Guard. Jeromes division were supposed to be pretty good amongst the line units.

Evidently the French weren't good enough as they were repulsed on nearly every sector of the battlefield.

Please, please Mr. Hill--you don't have to do this. We're all rational people here. Just go back to the car and we'll pretend none of this happened. OK?

"Please, please Mr. Hill"

Shouldn't that be "my Lord"?

Der Alte Fritz – beat me to it! :)

Well, no offence, but its all pretty subjective..as is your British list…so just take a few edjucated guesses and make it up like you have the Brit list

Ok, main disagreement is 71st, fought through the whole of the Penninsular in the 3rd Division, probably the best line infantry at Waterloo.

1)

this is based not so much on how they did on the day but rather their LEVELS OF EXPERIENCE (not subjective) and general reputation. I'd rather not get bogged down in debating the above

2) I'll rephrase the question

Does anybody know how much combat each of the French Battalions had seen? Or had they all fought exactly the same number of battles/campaigns?

If you have this data I'd really like to hear your comments.

Well at Waterloo you have the whole "wiped out in 1812, drafted too young in 1813, disbanded in 1814, came out of retirement in 1815" variable to contend with.

What I take that to mean is that Extra Crispy's Frenchmen had a year's experience, fighting desperately. That does not include those held down in Spain/S. France, who were accomplished infantrymen. And also those, like Davout's guys in Hamburg, who were under seige through it all.

There is also a morale factor. The war-weary French of 1814 were soon angered by the returning Bourbons, and saw the new war as one of liberation.

But I'm not the expert. I would want to hear from Scotty Bowden on this one. He did write a book about it, after all.

The wargaming term 'brittle' is a useful one IMO for the Waterloo French.
There were many 1812 returnees, veterans of 1813-14 in the ranks. In other words experienced soldiers who had flocked to the eagles.
To counter balance this, the feeling of possible treachery sapped morale: who amongst the senior officers could be trusted?
I think this makes the French in 1815 unstoppable….until they are stopped.

Did the French also include many men who were POWs and released from prison in 1814? I am not sure they had been processed and released yet.

Had not some british veterans been deployed to the Americas?

FredB, Was not the 71st regarded as a Light Infantry and not a Line regiment?

Yes there were numerous veterans in the new formations but were there not a large number of new draftees or were these new troops deployed to training depots along the Spanish and German borders?

So many questions that have to be asked. However as one person stated, if you are classifying for an army list, you have to make a decision on grading at some point. Of course some will disagree with any specific unit rating. Sharpshooters will always be able to point out an exception though you should rate based on an overall track record.

This is why in Guard du Corps back in 1979 we gave a more general classification rather than a by unit classification. Examples were Veterans 20% at (X+) rating, Regular troops 70% at a (X) rating and Conscript troops 30% at (X-). Guard 10% would be rated even higher. The percentage represent a max level which is why they add up to over 100%.

If you are going with experience and experience would the same benefits (increase in status) not be applied to Prussian Reserve Regiments like the old Burg, Lutzow and RGL formations?

Along this vein should not the Belgian and Dutch veterans be increased in status?

Wow! VERY subjective stuff this – a standout Ligne Regiment with the Armee du Nord was the 34th, but they were part of Vandamme's III Corps and missed Waterloo. Best Legere Regiment with 'Nord was probably the 9th (no surprises there, eh!) but they were in Gerard's IV Corps and also missed Waterloo. "Best" is hard to quantify of course. Lots of good comments above.

Important point to remember is that although at the Bourbon Restoration in 1814 the huge reorganisation and reduction in the Army's Order of Battle chnaged all the Regimental numbers, once Napoleon returned he allowed the Regiments to assume their old numbers. He was a soldier before he was an Emperor and understood regimental pride.

71st fought the whole of the penninsular as a line regiment even though they earned the designation of the HLI. There again your list has the 52nd and 95th listed and they were both definately light regiments.

Just remember light regiments could fight as line, although the opposite was not always true.

To my way of thinking you would be best served to rate the majority of the French Infantry as Veteran at least. They deserve that honour, they were nothing like the conscripts of the couple of years before.

Shane

I think the issue was not how you rate French infantry generically but whether there are particular line regiments known to be better than others.
The British reader may well have some ideas on the best quality British units,but the French can seem like a huge mass of anonymous "numbers".
Any mileage in the possibility of the units with the low ie senior numbers[most of which seem to be with Jerome] being a cut above? Or is that too fanciful?

I just finished reading – actually "skimming" – through Sir Charles Oman's History of the Peninsular War. That campaign has been my focus in collecting, converting and painting since the 1960's. Many of the French units I like were at Waterloo, and "survived" the Peninsular War through Toulouse. If their battalions were captured by the British (one of the 88eme de ligne at Badajoz; one of the 9eme Leger in southern France toward the end?) they probably returned after the war in reasonably good shape. I believe the Peninsular units would have been better for not having been "erased" in Russia, or Leipsig, or 1813 campaign, etc.

In D'Erlon's I Corps, at Waterloo (but wandering back and forth at Ligne/Quatre Bras!):
- 54th was in I Corps in Spain
- 28th was in IV Corps in Spain
- 46th had one battalion in one battle in Spain, but may have been wrecked in the 1813 Campaign.
- 45th was in I Corps in Spain – lost eagle to the Greys at Waterloo.
- 8th was in I Corps in Spain – lost eagle at Chiclana/Barrosa in Spain
- 95th was in I Corps in Spain.

Reille's II Corps at Waterloo:
- 2eme Leger in II Corps in Spain
- 4eme Leger in II Corps in Spain, there brigaded with 2eme.

Vandamme's III Corps was with Grouchy
- 34th and 88th were in Spain

Gerard's IV Corps was also with Grouchy
- 96th was in I Corps in Spain
- 63rd was in I Corps in Spain
- 9eme Leger was in I Corps in Spain

Lobau's VI Corps:
- 40th Line was in Spain, but "organising at Senlis?"
- 65th was in Spain
- 75th was in Spain in IV Corps, with the German Division (included 2nd Nassau, fighting against them at Waterloo) and the Polish 4th, 7th, and 9th.

Other regiments at Waterloo may have been in Spain, but I focus on the I, II and IV Corps in Spain. Can others on the Page contribute?

GdeP

Many thanks GdeP, that's excellent and just what I was looking for.

Would one be able to break it down even further, that is, to say how many individual battles in the Peninsula the different regiments had fought?

there ya go, that is a great way of looking at the question.

Garde de Paris, how many of those "Peninsular" French regts would have had drafts, cadres and entire battalions siphoned off to fight in Germany in 1813?

I would assume that the cavalry regts which were wiped out in Russian and therefore close to useless in Germany in 1813 had been patched up by 1815 and were equal to those cavalry regts which had spend the entire war in Spain.

For instance, the cuirassiers were next to rubbish in 1813, but pretty impressive in a hopeless effort at Mt St Jean.

Above, note that these regiments of the I Corp in Spain were in Napoleons army in the Waterloo campaign:
- 9eme leger
- 96eme de ligne, both in the first division with the 24th, which I do not rember being at Waterloo.

- 16eme leger headed off the 2nd division, but does not appear at Waterloo
- 8th yes
- 45th yes
- 54th yes

- 27eme leger was not at waterloo, but headed up the 3rd division in Spain.
- 63rd line yes
- 94th line in Spain, but not at Waterloo.
- 95th line was at Waterloo

The French division of IV Corp (28th and 75th above) and the German division attacked the Spanish under Blake, and won at Zornosa, ?October 1808? Shortly after this…

Vilatte with the 3rd Division, I Corp, near Bilbao, was suddenly attacked by Blake to free Acevedo's Spanish division trapped by the French (who did not know it was there!). Acevedo saw Vilatte falling back toward him, tried to block him, but the 3rd division formed a mass and punched through. He lost 1 8pdr, 300 men, and many of his baggage wagons.

I'm running slow, tired, and this will take a lot of reading. More later, but…

Pass of Somosierra: Elements of I Corp (I think is was the first division including the 96th line) went up the flanks of the Somosierra Pass, and cleared the Spanish out, while the duty squadron of the Polish Guard light horse (not yet lancers) have every man killed or wounded in a charge straight up the road.

The Ist and IVth Corps had heavy fighting at Talavera de la Reina against Wellington.

I don't recall Oman noting infantry being siphoned off to fight in Germany after Vitoria. All the Guard was gone before Vitoria (two regiments of the Young Guard had been there the longest).

As I understand it, when the French were driven out of Spain after Vitoria, many of the dragoon regiments were called to the main army, and became the best cavalry Napoleon had. Not many dragoon regiments at Waterloo as I recall. The 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th Hussars served the entire period in Spain – the 4th with Suchet on the east coast. (1 and 4 were brigaded at Waterloo.) Suchet also had one dragoon regiment, and the 13th Cuirassiers, probably until the end. The Westphalian Chevau leger (by this time lancers)were with him until the allies overran Westphalia. Might they have been disbanded?

GdeP

How far do the regiments of 1815 actually reflect those with the same number in the 1804-14 period? In 1815, would men have returned automatically to their former regiment, or would they have joined the nearest depot/recruiting centre? If the latter, then the esprit de corps of "famous" units might have been diluted, but their level of training may still have been high (or even raised), while previously "weak" units could actually have improved.

As an example, the "2eme Suisse" was formed from the Swiss guard regiment that had been created to serve the Bourbons. IIRC, this latter unit had been created from the grenadier companies of the four regiments that had served Napoleon. Thus the "2eme Suisse" (why not 1er – anyone know?) would have been extremely "veteran" if not actually elite.

read this this morning, a British officer writing of meeting a Prussian officer on 16th June,

"He told me that a very severe action had been fought by the Prussians, he spoke despondingly – He said he had been in all the former campaigns against the French, but had never seen them fight with anything like the same determination."

doesn't sound like there was much wrong with esprit de corps!

I did read that the 85th Ligne was from Normandy and included a number of returning POW's in the Waterloo campaign. They were keen to get revenge on the British for the prison hulks.Sounds like veteran status would be appropriate for them

<<They were keen to get revenge on the British for the prison hulks.>>

Bit of a cheek given how the other nations – particularly the Spanish, Portuguese, Russians and Prussians – treated their French prisoners.

Other than the Spanish, did the other nations treat the French prisoners badly?
The British method of housing them in old ship hulls does appear particularly bad.

If you were rank-and-file, you got crappy accommodation full stop; that's why so many prisoners opted to serve in their opponents' forces. Not all British-held French PoWs were kept on hulks (in fact, I think this was mostly naval prisoners, but I could be wrong). Many were kept in castles and forts, occasionally men with skills could obtain work on the outside.

Remember that there were no permanent facilities in the UK big enough to house large numbers of PoWs, so necessity, not cruelty, was the driving factor. The technology to build the archetypal WW2-style PoW camp was largely unknown at this time. Bear in mind also, that the day-to-day maintenance and welfare of PoWs (pay, clothing, etc) was still primarily the responsibility of their own government rather than that of their captors – with the consequent problem that poor governments (or even wealthy ones) might consider captured personnel so much "dead weight" and not bother supporting them. For much of the 18th Century, the British and French had an "understanding" that each would treat PoWs as their own troops, and once hostilities were over the two nations would compare costs and settle any balance; I don't know if this survived past the Revolution.

The technology to build the archetypal WW2-style PoW camp was largely unknown at this time.

Well…

Dartmoor prison was built specially to house French PoWs.

link

^ history of HMP Dartmoor. Go on, click it, it won't bite.

The museum's worth a visit if you're everin the area

Other than the Spanish, did the other nations treat the French prisoners badly?
The British method of housing them in old ship hulls does appear particularly bad.

Not that the French were exemplarary captors – massacring Austrian grenadiers captured at Essling after they had surrendered for example.

I tend to think of the French army in 1815 as similar to the German army in 1944 at the Battle of the Bulge. Morale was generally good, but in terms of experince and training many units were deficient. There were also equipement problems – Currasiers without curraises for example. Certainly with a few exeptions the Germans in late 1944 and the French in 1815 weren't a patch on the glory days of 1940/41 or 1805/06.

As an example, the "2eme Suisse" was formed from the Swiss guard regiment that had been created to serve the Bourbons. IIRC, this latter unit had been created from the grenadier companies of the four regiments that had served Napoleon. Thus the "2eme Suisse" (why not 1er – anyone know?) would have been extremely "veteran" if not actually elite.

There's a good article on the Swiss in the 100 Days here:

PDF link

According to this, the unit wasn't the "2eme Suisse" as such but the 2e Regiment Etranger (Suisse); ie the 2nd Foreign Regt (Swiss).

When Napoleon returned from Elba it was proposed to create five "foreign" infantry regiments; the 1st composed of Piedmontese/Italians, the 2nd of Swiss, the 3rd of Poles, the 4th of Germans and the 5th of Belgians. Later three further foreign regiments were proposed; the 6th of Spanish and Portuguese, the 7th of Irish and the 8th of Italians.

So the 2nd Regiment consisted of a mix of all four former Swiss units. The article also has some notes on their uniforms and eagle flag which Alexis Cabaret seems to have used on his Mont St Jean site.

Mike

<<history of HMP Dartmoor. Go on, click it, it won't bite.>>

Dagnabbit, Muskie! Completely forgot about it. No excuses, actually been there (years ago). I was thinking of barbed wire, pre-fabricated huts, Alsatian dogs, search lights, machine gun towers etc.

<<According to this, the unit wasn't the "2eme Suisse" as such but the 2e Regiment Etranger (Suisse); ie the 2nd Foreign Regt (Swiss).>>

Fair enough, I'd always seen it called the 2eme Suisse. Thanks for the link.

The near-universal Spanish experience of the French 1815 regiments is curious. Were these regiments spared much of the trauma of 1812-1814 because Wellington kept them entertained? Did this also help them maintain a higher level of loyalty to Napoleon, with more officers surviving to recruit troops during the 100 days?

If the 1815 regimental officers generally had served together with these same units in Spain, then there may be some validity to assigning morale grades based on their performance/experience in Spain. Otherwise, some skepticism is understandable.

Here's a less than flatering view of the french in 1815.

"The veterans who marched to Waterloo knew well the taste of defeat, some were ex-POWs who spent months or even years years in Russian, British or Spanish captivity. They could be angry but without the air of invincibility. Captain Duthilt thought the soldiers who had suffered the defeats of the emperor's recent campaigns and the returned prisoners of war from Russia had lost a great deal of their enthusiasm. A call for volunteers produced only some laughable 15,000 men. "There was a prodigious gap between them (soldiers of 1815) and our old soldiers from the Camp the Boulogne." (- Desales, officer of artillery of Erlon's I Corps)"

Hey Fred here's something from a book called The Waterloo Campaign by Albert A.Nofi,and on page 35 it says the following

Between 20 March and 15 June he(Napoleon) managed to create an army of over 600,000,a goodly proportion of whom were battle hardened campaigners.

Louis XVIII's army had about 180,000 effective men under arms
when Napoleon resumed the throne.The Emperor immediately
recalled some 50,000 whom that parsimonious-and
impecunious-king had sent on extended leave.He procured a
further 80,000 by after the 100,000 who had deserted during the
campaign of 1814.This gave him 310,000 men,all of whom had
seen some regular service,and many of whom were old
campaigners,such as his Imperial Guardsmen.
Yet another 90,000 were taken from the ranks of the 150,000 men of the class of 1815,who had been called up during 1814
and never properly discharged.By combing through the
National Guard-a bourgeois militia force-for the best men
and units,by encouraging discharged verterans to re-enlist,
and by actively promoting volunteering among liberal and
republican elements of the populace,he was able to raise a
further 200,000,and thus attained a total of nearly 615,000
men under arms by June 15th.Of these 215,000 were immediately assigned to the field armies,while 285,000
went to garrison the most critical fortresses,and the remaining
115,000 were assigned as reserves or were still in the depots.
Nor did Napoleon's efforts to beef up his forces end there,for
he believed that with a little luck he could have some 800,000
men availiable by the end of September.

That's somewhat more than the laughable 15,000 which you said.

Captain Gideon

That's somewhat more than the laughable 15,000 which you said.

It wasn't me that said it. It is a quote from French sources and probably refers specifically to recruiting to D'Erlons corps. Certainly the artillery officer concerned wasn't overly impressed with the quality of the army.
But there are those who think that the French Army of 1815 was packed full of veterans as good as those from 1805-07, just as there are those who think every German landser in 1945 was worth 2 of every other nations soldiers despite ample evidence to the contrary.

I'm sorry Fred to say that you said that quote.

As to that quote where might one find this information?

Or what i should say is where did you find it?

And from what Nofi says it would appear that the French Army that fought at Waterloo was pretty damm good,when it comes to Veteran and above quality troops.

Captain Gideon

gheesh!!! does it matter?

Just take 3-4 Tommy Aikens per company and mix them into a battalion of "what-evers" and you will be rolling plus 6's on your die all night. Be historical please!

As to that quote where might one find this information?

link

And from what Nofi says it would appear that the French Army that fought at Waterloo was pretty damm good,when it comes to Veteran and above quality troops.

As to that quote where might one find this information?

Or what i should say is where did you find it? :-)

Different officers might have differing OPINIONS on the quality of troops.
Not many wargamers can agree on a set of rules.
What makes you think that two officers back then would agree on anything either?
(jest here guys)

What i said was not a quote of Nofi but you could say that it's sorta a summing up of what i've read in his book.

However i can say that Nofi said that
"Virtually the entire French Army was composed of Veterans"

The above can be found on page 45 in the lower part of the page.

Captain Gideon

Based on the outcome of the battle the short answer is not good enough.

This is a very interesting and important question. Given the results of the battle, there has never been much attendtion paid to the issue.

Doesn't anyone out there have a copy of Bowden's "Armies at Waterloo"? It would seem to be a good place to begin the discussion. For French stuff, Scotty is among the best of sources, and uses a LOT of primary sources.

I wish they would reprint that book. It's really needed.

Bill

It really is an issue of criteria. What would/should be the basis for making that kind of comparison--grading the various units. Garde de Paris' list of French regiments and their past locations/experience is great. It is surprising how many units were in Spain. However, that still doesn't provide a set of criteria for rating the units, let alone rating them against the British.

It is something that has to be done for a wargame. It is just a matter of method in determining the comparisons…

Bill H.

Just saw this thread yesterday, very interesting discussion. Lord Hill how would you rate the British/KGL cavalry regiments with your ABCD system. How would other readers rate the French cavalry regiments.

cheers
Edward