"Why was the Guard pants at Waterloo?" Topic

link

In response to the topic I would say that the French Guard can only be commended for their courage and tenacity in the fighting around Planchenoit. As for the final attack against Wellington's line I think it is merely a case of "the French coming on in the same old style and being defeated in the same old style". The French tactics of narrow columns seeking to break through gaps in the line had never been successful against British defensive tactics.

One source worth reading about this final attack as to be Siborne's collection of the Waterloo Letters (plus those never originally published but now available in Gareth Glover's book).

Siborne created a model of the battle at the crisis – the defeat of the attack by the Imperial Guards. To seek accuracy for the model Siborne sent a letter to surviving officers of the British units present at the battle, specifically seeking information on the final assault. This model is presented in the National Army Museum Chelsea.

These letters are as near to a primary source as you can get and many subsequent books and studies contain contents based on these letters. There is always an element of scepticism required with after-action reports but the victors usually have no need to misrepresent the situation. Many French reports appear to have been written by those not immediately involved as many participants unfortunately became casualties and did not live to tell the tale. Some reports were written by those at a distance both on the field of battle and at a distance in time which allows myths and mystery to emerge.

My summary of the final attach is that the French advanced in two narrow columns (frontage perhaps 70 files each – i.e. a grand division of 200 or so men) with that on the French left being behind (accidental or deliberate echelon we cannot tell). There was also some artillery in close support in the gaps between the columns plus some cavalry on the left of the infantry which were dispersed by artillery fire. To the right of the guards there were elements or remnants of D'Erlon's corp.

There is a legitimate debate over whether the Guards were in closed column or marching in square, my preference is close column due to the report of the second or leftmost column wheeling the extreme files to form something of a line to fire at the 52nd. This would not have been necessary for an open square.

The first (rightmost) column of guards appears to have been confronted by Maitland's brigade formed four deep supported by a number of artillery batteries. Maitland at a full strength of 2000 men would have a frontage of 500 files and even if we allow 30 percent losses due to artillery and earlier combat we would still have 1400 men or 350 files. I am not suggesting a ratio of 350 to 70 for the weight of fire but allowing for half of the British line not having a clear line of fire we could take this to a minimum of 140 files against 70. The usual firing of volleys plus a bayonet charge appears to have had the usual result.

Having advanced Maitland's Brigade found it's right flank threatened by the leftmost column of Guards so fell back to the original position to reform. It should be noted that Wellington had set this original position in order to be directly in the path of the French advance.

The second column of Guards met less opposition to its front and managed to find or force a gap between the right of Maitland and the left of Adams Brigade (95th Rifles) until this column was halted by the wheel and charge of the 52nd.

It should not be forgotten that there were other troops available behind this first infantry line notably the Hussars and Light Dragoons of Vivian and Vandeleur plus Dutch and Belgian Infantry. Wellington had managed his reserves to be in the right place at the right time.

Further to the left of Maitland was Halkett's brigade which appears to have advanced in support of Maitland and then retired under pressure from artillery fire and infantry then rallied and fought off a column of infantry after only firing for a short time. The letters of Gawler and Kelly (73rd) suggest that the infantry they faced did not stand long and may have been of the line rather than guard.

Chuvak,

I will quote from my own translation into English of Harlet as that is the commonly used language on this site:

"My own regiment moved from its position to the left of the road (he means the Mont St. Jean – Quatre Bras road) to the attack of the British position. We were already formed in squares by the road and maintained this formation during the march, for fear of the British cavalry. All of the battalions made the attack in this formation, which was a large cause of our downfall as we could not deploy to return the enemy's fire. During the attack we lost many men to the enemy's cannons so that our formations were disordered even before we faced their muskets."

Curiously, the one thing that the report does not mention is his own wounding.

Colin

OK Fred, like you said, it seems we will have to agree to disagree on this.

Shane

I will quote from my own translation into English of Harlet as that is the commonly used language on this site:

"My own regiment moved from its position to the left of the road (he means the Mont St. Jean – Quatre Bras road) to the attack of the British position. We were already formed in squares by the road and maintained this formation during the march, for fear of the British cavalry. All of the battalions made the attack in this formation, which was a large cause of our downfall as we could not deploy to return the enemy's fire. During the attack we lost many men to the enemy's cannons so that our formations were disordered even before we faced their muskets."

This little snippit of information also adds to my own thoughts on the matter that the French guards btlns were severely cut up before the muskets began to fire…

Shane

<<This little snippit of information also adds to my own thoughts on the matter that the French guards btlns were severely cut up before the muskets began to fire.>>

Didn't this include the oft-quoted example of a single ball knocking down 20+ men, one behind the other (presumably running down one side of a square)?

yes, I think so for sure,

Because the French Guards were in square and hit continually by around 60 Allied guns over a frontage of 1,100yds over a distance of 750yds the damage would have been significant even if those guns were served by exhausted men, short of ammunition etc. If the Btlns were marching say at a rate of 100yds per minute this would mean that they were under fire for 7.5 minutes by upwards of 60 guns firing maybe 2 rounds per minute each. This would equate to say roughly, 900 rounds fired at the 5 btlns. Not all hitting mind you but enough incoming fire-power to severely damage these btlns.

This would have been say, 180 rounds per btln. If just 5% of the rounds hit at square this wound be nine hits and if each hit scored 20 casualties each you have upwards of say 150-200 casualties per btln square…Now even if you halve that figure you still have 75-100 casualties or, 20% of their number lost on the way up. That number of casualties no matter who you are is going to hurt cohesion, confidence and resolve.

It was no coincidence that these btlns survived that, they were made up of veterans all with many years experience behind them. However, these losses on the way up would have added to the slow deterioration of each btln lessening their ability to fight on with each passing minute and the increasing casualties inflicted. By the time they were then hit by musketry each btln would have been reduced to various degrees (generally) and in poor shape. Not all 5 btlns would have been effected equally, one or two would have been damaged more severely that one or two others but overall they would have been in severe trouble. A lesser unit would have collapsed well before hitting the slope of Mont St. Jean.

I am not making excuses for them or justifying their defeat, I have already stated this. I am merely trying to say that they were pretty much lost before the musketry even begun. The devastation caused by the musketry was the final straw that broke their backs. The volley fire sealed their fates, they tried to fight back to various degrees but by then it was pretty much too late.

Casualties or the fear of becoming a casualty increases stress and decreases resolve at the same rate. Couple this with time and you find that entities such as btlns in battle slowly decline in cohesion, resolution and ability no matter who they are as casualties increase.

The more experienced the unit (as a whole) the more they can take but the end result is usually still the same if the pressure is not released or relieved. The only way the pressure would have been relieved for the MG on this occasion would have been if the British gun line withdrew or was not there. But they were there and did put up enough firepower to exert pressure on the MG btlns slowly reducing their capability to fight in a cohesive fashion against the British and allied infantry once they met, couple this with being in square and you have a recipe for defeat.

Shane

Hi Glenn Pearce

Regiments are not static. The same men who start a campaign are not always the same ones who finish it. Some certainly do while others do not.

I know! That's why I repeat, I was talking about the men not the regiment!

All the best

Lord Hill

colinjallen,

That'a a very interesting quote from Harlet. Thanks!

Were did you find it ?

I find it interesting that British sources, which appear to be based upon Sibornes letters, suggest that the French Guard were in column, whilst the French sources who, to the best of my knowledge, were not canvassed by Siborne, suggest that the French were in Square. It makes sense that the British should conclude that the French were in column, coming on in the same old way, and ultimately being defeated, in the same old way. But perhaps there's more reason to believe that they were actually in square as reported by some of the French actually present in the formations, as exampled by Colinjallen above.

D'Erlon's attack of the early afternoon, had been an example of French 'shock and awe'. The two central 'columns' were intended by their formation to essentially intimidate the enemy into defeat. They created an illusion of invincibility, and unstoppable force. Obviously that didn't work – primarily because of a British mounted counterattack.

The French guards attack of the late evening was incapable of delivering such a large force. Their assault called for precision and ingenuity. With the lack of effective cavalry support, and the real threat of enemy cavalry, it probably made immense sense to advance in square. This would not be unknown, as troops would have adopted this formation to maneuver during rearguard actions when threatened, in the open, by enemy cavalry. The square could maneuver forwards, to each side and rearward, with only minimal disruption. The front face would be represented [in this case] by a single company in line, the two side faces, would turn to face flank, and move in something not unlike a 'march column', the rear face would simply about face. If threatened the square could halt, the sides face out to the flank, and the rear about face, and they were ready to defend themselves.

This makes sense when trying to understand the casualties inflicted by the 4th Chasseurs on the 52nd Light. An earlier post mentioned 150 casualties. If the french had been in column of companies, the flank could have presented 12 ranks, or no more than 24-36 muskets to bear against the British. If however, they were in square, when confronted by the 52nd, the left flank of the square would have faced out, and presented 140-210 muskets to bear. Much more effective.

The visual impact of a square, particularly in the smoke and gloom of the later evening would have been confusing to the observer. The battalion would have represented the same frontage as a column, perhaps 70 files, but the depth would have been 70 files/ranks too – instant 'shock and awe' – was it one battalion or six? During 1813, when Napoleon, due to losses, was considering employing two-ranks in lieu of three. He made the point that the enemy will not see the true depth of the unit, they will be fooled that the unit is still three-ranks. Perhaps that was a side benefit of advancing in square – the depth belied the actual strength. The British, seeing the formation loom out of the smoke, would have perceived exactly what they expected to see – a massive dense column of frenchmen.

Finally, at the point of contact with the enemy, the deployment to line, would have been rapid and smooth, with the two sides of the square wheeling into position either side of the front face, and the rear face, advancing and wheeling to either the right or left flank – once in position they were ready to deliver small arms fire. The change would have been as rapid as that from column to line.

I read a report from a British captain that passed over the battle field the next day that he was surprised that The French Gd were in square at the top of the hill, as that is how they died and the bodies where laid on the ground.

sorry i can not remember the ref.

Lord Ghee

Ligniere you may well have a point about the use of the square. This would have the front face of a company in line with two narrow columns (section or half section) making each flank whilst marching forwards and then one company atthe rear of the square.

I would imagine that if in column of company at quarter distance it would be possible to wheel the outer section to form a "line" to the flank so you are looking at 15 files in two ranks for each company giving 120 muskets rather than the 24-36.

Either are a possibility.

Ligniere 20 Nov 2009 5:34 a.m. PST
''The visual impact of a square, particularly in the smoke and gloom of the later evening would have been confusing to the observer''

Excellent point. Many other observers talk of the French guard appearing out of the smoke – so it's reasonable to assume they were difficult to see at some points. It also would make them more difficult to hit for longer. The fact the French Guard all halted and the second line failed to go in is indicative of poorly trained men – hense the question.

Mike the Mug 19 Nov 2009 2:32 p.m. PST
''the French Guard can only be commended for their courage and tenacity in the fighting around Planchenoit''

Young Guard yes – they re-took it without firing, but the Old Guard? They lost it. The Guard attacking the British ridge halted – could it be they were too nervous unlike their younger and possibly more courageous collegues?

Shane Devries 19 Nov 2009 4:06 p.m. PST
''This little snippit of information also adds to my own thoughts on the matter that the French guards btlns were severely cut up before the muskets began to fire…''

So the Guard simply were not used to normal battlefield conditions! I wish you'd read some of the information here, Shane, we don't all have to blindly follow the Guard Myth. The Guard were fresh troops facing British troops in a far worse condition.

To help you, I've already quoted descriptions of the terrible condition of Halkett's brigade.

Unusual weakness of troops facing the French Guard.

The Guard faced two other brigades which are described below during previous attacks!:

1) Adam's
''who ascending the slope….presented but a loose and broken front, whilst the feeble hurrahs they sent forth…' (Mercer)

2) Maitland's
(3,1, Foot Guards) '' Our squares presented a shoking sight….It was impossible to move a yard without treading on a wounded comrade or upon the bodies of the dead (Gronow)

So why did the Guard stop in the face of such weak troops when Bonaparte's artillery outnumbered the British?

As for reserves:
3) e.g. Kruse's Nassauer's, they were already attacked by cavalry which destroyed part of the square of the 1/1st and they'd lost many prisoners.

Couldn't it be because the Guard were just….not very good? Shane, your description of the Guard being the 'elite' is something you might find in a coffee table book, not in any serious history, especially of the 100 days. In fact the French Guard were mainly just tall conscripts wearing a motley assortment of clothes and they did worse than elements of D'Erlon's corps against fresher troops.

I think the Gaurd had pants at Waterloo,yeah yeah I think for sure they did.

"The French Imperial Guard charged up the main road till they came within 600 yards. We fired case shot at them, and swept them off like a swath of grass before a scythe" – John Edwards RA.

If Edwards was shooting at the guard, and given his comment about the main road it is quite a big if, this would seem to support the idea that the guard were badly hit by artillery well before they came within musket range. However, it may be that he was shooting at French line units advancing around La Haye Sainte in support of the guard.

Colin

Cacadores, your line of arguement appears to be that the Guard underperformed despite the weakness of the allied troops opposed to the final attack.

The attack of the 52nd and the rest of Adam's brigade is well documented and was anything but feeble. Perhaps Mercer was going deaf by the end of the day.

Maitland, again well documented they had a firefight and drove the Guards off. Maybe Gronow can be interpreted as Maitland's brigade stood their ground and lay where the fell.

If the Middle Guard were marching in open square then I doubt they can have been conscripts.

Do not forget that the Brtish line had artillery support, some of which is credited with driving of some French cavalry supporting the left column.

The Guard were up against a detemined defending force who beat them it is as simple as that.

Remember that the same French Guard had made a successful attack at Ligny. Possibly the difference is that the Prussian defense at Ligny had been worn down to a greater extent and there was nothing left in reserve.

Hello Cacadores!

"Many other observers talk of the French guard appearing out of the smoke – so it's reasonable to assume they were difficult to see at some points. It also would make them more difficult to hit for longer. The fact the French Guard all halted and the second line failed to go in is indicative of poorly trained men – hense the question."

I think that's pretty normal. The smoke came from the guns that were firing on the French. They had their target fixed before they started firing. Don't see any unusal problems here or any merit in your comments.

The second line didn't fail to go anywhere, it was ordered to halt.

There is absolutly nothing to indicate they were poorly trained men.

"but the Old Guard? They lost it" "could it be they were too nervous"

Have no idea where you get this from. I've never read any such comments by any author. Do you have a source?

"facing British troops in a far worse condition"

What proof do you have of this? If anything I would suspect
the Allied army might have a stronger resolve at this point.

"previous attacks"

Are just that and have nothing to do with the next attack.

"So why did the Guard stop in the face of such weak
troops when Bonaparte's artillery outnumbered the British?"

I don't think you have reading all the posts. This has been explained in detail more then once. Bonaparte's artillery did not outnumber the Allies at the point of contact.

"Couldn't it be because the Guard were just….not very good? Shane, your description of the Guard being the 'elite' is something you might find in a coffee table book, not in any serious history, especially of the 100 days. In fact the French Guard were mainly just tall conscripts wearing a motley assortment of clothes and they did worse than elements of D'Erlon's corps against fresher troops."

Very strange comments, I don't recall any serious history book describing the French Guard as conscrips. Sounds more like you have never read a serious history book. Since you like quotes, can you quote some for us?

I think your standing alone in your position. So if you really have some relevent facts to share then please do as so far I've not seen any.

Best regards,

Glenn

Cacadores
The fact the French Guard all halted and the second line failed to go in is indicative of poorly trained men – hense the question.

If you already knew the answer to *your* topic, why did you bother asking the question?

Your Anglophilia it seems is every bit as bad as Mr Hofschroer's alleged (by you many times) anti-Anglo/Wellesley biases.

YouTube link

It seems that the has returned from his exile!

What is in the Youtube link?

Symbiotic.
Its Alanis Morissette's song "Ironic"

Eaglesixfive.
I know of one poster here who says he won't post on any subject that includes the "Hofschroer" word because of anonymous phone calls to his place of work. I've also just recently seen the most vile sexual accusations posted against Cacadore on another forum which included for good measure the term "headbanging".
Do you really feel by criticizing Cacadore's arguments you might bring those reactions down upon yourself? Or does he just strike you as very stubborn?
regards
Max

Cacadores,

You wrote: "Young Guard yes – they re-took it without firing, but the Old Guard? They lost it. The Guard attacking the British ridge halted – could it be they were too nervous unlike their younger and possibly more courageous collegues?"

You are wrong, sir. The Old Guard re-took it at bayonet point without firing a shot, not the Young Guard. Can you present some sources that corroborate what you are saying about the Old Guard at Plancenoit? Every historian that I know of who has written on the subject, being him British or French, agrees that the Old Guard performed admirably at Plancenoit.

The Prussians had high praise for the Old Guard's performance at Plancenoit. Siborne called the defense of Plancenoit "Splendid defense of Plancenoit by the Guard", including the Old Guard.

I've posted this before and will do so again.

The Young Guard and two battalions of the Old Guard (the real Old Guard) fought like lions at Plancenoit. Two battalions of the Old Guard were dispatched to Plancenoit. Against overwhelming numbers, they retook the village from the Prussians and waited for the next Prussian onslaught. They defended the church and cemetery to the very last and were the last to leave Plancenoit.

Earlier in the fight, the Old Guard retook Plancenoit at bayonet point. Even the Prussians had high praise for the Old Guard.

The history of the 2nd Silesian regiment [Prussian regiment] described the fight: "… Once Duhesme's Division of the Young Guard had got into Plancenoit, it immediately took up positions in the houses and particularly behind the churchyard wall.
Taking no notice of the heavy canister and musket fire, the 16th [Prussian Brigade] advanced up to the churchyard. Here, hit by murderous fire and attacked by the French reserves [French Guard] with such force, it was forced to withdraw. It rallied outside the village and went over to the attack immediately. In this second assault, the two musketeer battalions of the 2nd Silesian regiment took part. However, the French also beat off this attack."
According to the 15th regiment history: "… Our regiment, along with four battalions of the 16th brigade (from the 2nd Silesian infantry regiment and the 1st Pomeranian Landwehr regiment) undertook the second assault on the village. The 1st Silesian Landwehr regiment remained in reserve. The enemy resisted with great determination, but the village was recaptured and a large number of enemy guardsmen were either killed or captured in the close combat.
However, we could not hold onto the village this time either. Napoleon sent two battalions of Old Guard under general Morand from his reserves to Plancenoit. Two of their battalions along with the Young Guard and the remaining troops in the village took control of it again, forcing our men to withdrawn."

The 2nd Silesian infantry history continued: "… Supported by Colonel von Funck's Pomeranian's [and other units], they stormed the churchyard. Here, a vicious, bloody and bitter battle took place. General Morand brought up the battalions of the Imperial Guard held in reserve behind Plancenoit. Two of them were sent into the village. Not fearing death, they pressed on, inspiring the Young Guard again. However, despite the great determination with which the French and particularly the Old Guard defended Plancenoit, all their efforts and heroic sacrifices could do nothing to halt the attacking Prussians."

This article written by Peter Hofschrφer and was originally published in the June 2002 issue of Military History magazine and it's called "Waterloo – Prussian assault on Plancenoit".

"headbanging"
I must be getting really old, I thought a headbanger was someone who attended a heavy metal rock concert.

As for Cacadores, there is no sympathy for the devil.

lol, cacadores gets dog housed for flouting the rules of the board "once again" I even predicted this would happen on another thread. He insults every one's intelligence with his own misplaced and strange take on history. He argues that the French guard were poor even though everyone here tells him he is wrong.

I dunno what you would call that? but I have no need to even bother to argue the point any longer, you can't when the person you are dealing with refuses to see sense. Everyone else here is doing an awesome job but alas I dare say this guy is so set in his ways at looking at the world that he cannot be made to see the inaccuracies of his words, this has been the case for several years on this board sadly.

…but I do get a chuckle out of it, I think we all are.

Shane

Uh.. Shane.. you got the wrong guy.Colinjallen is DHed.

Don't really know about any of that Max. But I do know it's a poor show to accuse when one is guilty doing said same yourself.

Shane Devries

---Hi Fred, no worries at all, my wraith is not at you.---

They had ghosts at Waterloo, Shane?

Cheers,

Glynn

Maxshadow

---I've also just recently seen the most vile sexual accusations posted against Cacadore on another forum which included for good measure the term "headbanging".---

Which forum? I'd like to see that!

Pete,

I believe Shane was referring to Cacadores latest stay in the dog house-it was last week if I remember correctly.

Sincerely,
K

yeah Pete, cacadores was DH'd as I knew he would be last week as Kevin explained.

Hi Glynn,

Yeah, they were called, the 6th Wraith Regiment de ligne.

/sigh I obviously played too many RPG's in the past.

p.s. you on for Tuesday night?

Absolutely mate!

Cheers,

Glynn

Surely, to suggest thet the OG were poor troops rather downgrades the quality of the mainly British troops who stopped them………..I'd say they were the second-best infantry in Europe, but came up against the very best…..

ohh, that will get a bite.

Naaa. Thats too much like logic – wont work.
Try pointing out that the majority troops on the battlefield were German, that usually sets the upper lip atremble.

ROFL

Gronow – Hahahaha – go find out where that 'esteemed' Guards officer was posted during Waterloo before you quote him like he was a truthful witness. What a load of cac.

JeffsaysHi

--- "What a load of cac." ---

Is that like a load of cacadore?

Once upon a time on this forum, threads like this would degenerate into spiteful arguments. Now they turn into snappy one liners! :oP

"He argues that the French guard were poor even though everyone here tells him he is wrong."

I thought he was arguing the French Guard is poor against the British or that the British were superior kind of men compared with the French.

BTW, it's a view I do not agree with, too much jingoism IMHO. For me the French guard charging an unbroken enemy in such desperate circumstances were bound to break.

I don't know much about the performance of the Old Guard at Waterloo, but since Alanis Morisette has been brought into the argument, here's Ed Byrne pointing out that she suffers from an ironic inability to understand the concept of irony: YouTube link

Slightly off topic but worth a watch.

Ah, I see the "Tarnich the Glory" out of Norwich has put to sea again! Nets scraping bottom, as usual. Oh, well. <:^{

Big Al

Very slightly off topic. This is an extract from a paper I have been working on to establish French strengths and losses at significant points in the Waterloo campaign. The extract is a quotation from work carried out by Charles Oman about a 100 years ago and stongly suggests that the French deployed six, not five battalions in the final attack of the Guard.

My comments are in [square brackets].

I hope you find it is of interest.

- Allan

**************************

'This set of figures [an official French parade state dated 16 June 1815] disposes of M[onsieur] Houssaye's statement that only five battalions of the Guard were engaged in Ney's final attack on the British light [sic – should read 'right'] centre at Waterloo. He says that the 4th Chasseurs was a small regiment originally, and suffered so severely at Ligny that it was consolidated into a single battalion on 18 June. These assertions are contradicted (1) by the fact that it certainly had 1,041 bayonets [actually 1,071 including officers] – two full battalions – on the morning of Ligny, as shown by this return, and (2) by the tables of M[onsieur] Martinien, which demonstrates that the regiment lost not one single officer killed or wounded at Ligny. It cannot possibly, therefore, have had more than 20 or 30 casualties in the rank and file – probably less. At Waterloo, therefore, it must have been still over 1,000 strong, and formed two full battalions. Ney's attack, therefore, was delivered by six, not five battalions, supported, as we believe, by two more of the 2nd Chasseurs somewhat to the rear of the echelon formed by the others.'

"Slightly off topic but worth a watch."

BWAHAHAHA!

Try pointing out that the majority troops on the battlefield were German, that usually sets the upper lip atremble.

Really? I thought the majority were French at least until near the end! That would explain why the Guard did badly then – they were really Germans in disguise! :-)

Palafox 01 Dec 2009 3:31 a.m. PST
''For me the French guard charging an unbroken enemy in such desperate circumstances were bound to break.''

There's temporarily routing as d'Erlon's men did, and then re-forming and attacking again the unbroken ridge line. Which is what they did.

Compare this with the Old and Middle Guard which attacked British who had diminished artillery, some of whom had broken before, at a time when the Dutch/British had two other attacks going in against them at the same time. The Guard didn't just rout: they failed to re-form properly afterwards: a quite amazing performance for a supposidly elite force.

link

Excellent Shane, though I doubt the point will be taken.

Sincerely,
K

ROFL Shane.
I realy enjoyed point number
"6.Reclassifying the dead horse as living impaired."
From now on all my casualty figures will be called "living impaired counters".
Max

good to see you are "politically correct" in your gaming pursuits Max heheehe

I will be from now on!
:oP