"Light Infantry in the Spanish Army" Topic

Does anyone have any thoughts about Spanish Light Infantry in the Napoleonic Wars? I don't remember ever reading anything specific on the subject. For starters, what about the following:

1. Did the 1808 regular line infantry, Royal Guard or embodied militia have any integral skirmishers (like British 'flankers', say? Or did they use the 'third-rank' method?

2. Did the 1808 regular light infantry have a specific light infantry role or was the title more a distinction of region and uniform?

3. Was there any substantial difference between newly-raised line and light infantry battalions after the French invasion?

4. Did the incorporation of a Cazadore company into the new organizations of both 1810 and 1812 reflect existing practice or was it intended to force change?

5. what did the abandonment of the separate light infantry organization in the 1812 regulations imply about the Spanish light infantry arm?

6. Did any contemporary witnesses make any specific comments about the effectiveness or otherwise of Spanish skirmishers not rolled in to general comments about the the patchy quality of Spanish forces during the period as these have been discussed at some length ?

7. Can the subsequent Spanish performances in the Wars of Liberation and the Carlist Wars tell us anything about the earlier period?

8. What are the good primary sources, especially Spanish, for this period and topic?

Regards

Well as no one has responded, I provide what I know:

1. Did the 1808 regular line infantry, Royal Guard or embodied militia have any integral skirmishers (like British 'flankers', say? Or did they use the 'third-rank' method?

The Spanish followed the general European model, or at least attempted to. That meant that they did not have integral skirmishers until aroune 1810, but they would deploy line troops by 3rd Rand, companies and volunteers…depending on the army and specific commanders.

2. Did the 1808 regular light infantry have a specific light infantry role or was the title more a distinction of region and uniform?

Light Infantry units, whether volunteer or line, were seen as light infantry and used that way…how successful they were is another question and probably varied between units.

3. Was there any substantial difference between newly-raised line and light infantry battalions after the French invasion?

Yes, by 1810 Line regiments had light companies.

4. Did the incorporation of a Cazadore company into the new organizations of both 1810 and 1812 reflect existing practice or was it intended to force change?

Yes and no. For the most part Spanish armies didn't develop uniformly, and not all units had light companies by 1810. It isn't clear whether the Cazadore company was supposed to be rifled armed or not. The 1812 instructions were simply a 'reminder' of existing practices and a further effort to produce universal compliance.

5. what did the abandonment of the separate light infantry organization in the 1812 regulations imply about the Spanish light infantry arm?

They were replaced by combining light companies much like the British as well as continuing with the militia/volunteer units of light infantry.

6. Did any contemporary witnesses make any specific comments about the effectiveness or otherwise of Spanish skirmishers not rolled in to general comments about the the patchy quality of Spanish forces during the period as these have been discussed at some length?

At the moment I can only comment on the battle of Albuera. Guy Dempsey admits that the Spanish skirmishers did perform splendedly during the battle from all accounts. Zaya's two Guard regiments and the Irlanda regiment sent their light companies ahead of the main line to delay the French--better than 500 men. They put up a stiff enough fight that when they retreated, the French thought they had broken the Spanish first line.

7. Can the subsequent Spanish performances in the Wars of Liberation and the Carlist Wars tell us anything about the earlier period?

Not any more than the British performance against the Sikhs during the same time can tell you what the British were doing in 1810 in the Peninsula.

8. What are the good primary sources, especially Spanish, for this period and topic?

I would ask that question on the Napoleon Series History Forum:

link

There are a number of Spaniards and Spanish-speaking members who have discussed that in the past.

Good hunting.

Bill

Thank you Bill for your answers and I will take your advice and ask on the NS Forum.

Regarding your answers:

3. I meant that large numbers of new 'line' and 'light' infantry battalions were raised in the period just after the French invasion. Were these new 'Cazadores' and 'Tiradores' used in the same way as the old Light Infantry units or were they used in identical fashion to the other newly-raised units. If the light infantry role was as demanding as is often said, presumably these very raw units would have found this extremely difficult?

5. Sorry, I'm not sure I understand your answer – I'll rephrase. If I understand aright then in 1812 all Spanish infantry units adopted the same 8-Company organization (i.e. 6xFus, 1xGren, 1xCaz), replacing the previous 6-Company organizations (Line 4xFus, 1xGren, 1xCaz/Light 6xCaz). Was this merely a change in nomenclature for the Light Infantry units or did it reflect a more profound change in role?

Thanks for your replies

Regards

3. I meant that large numbers of new 'line' and 'light' infantry battalions were raised in the period just after the French invasion. Were these new 'Cazadores' and 'Tiradores' used in the same way as the old Light Infantry units or were they used in identical fashion to the other newly-raised units. If the light infantry role was as demanding as is often said, presumably these very raw units would have found this extremely difficult?

Whirlwind:
From what I understand, yes, the same fashion…mostly in the traditional battlefield roles of defending woods, BUAs etc.

I have to laugh about the real contradictions in the general views floating around concerning light infantry. On one hand you have many saying the French skirmished in large numbers during the early 1790s because their raw sans culottes weren't capable of carrying out regular infantry evolutions. Most nations light infantry up until the late 1790s including Britain were often Freecorps units of 'untrained', foreign, or volunteer troops who were seen as unable to do anything BUT skirmish. However, once we are in the Napoleonic period after 1800, raw troops are seen as unable to skirmish because they are untrained.

So which is it? I would agree with you. Yes, they could skirmish, but probably weren't that good at it until they got some experience. Again, this might be discussed in Spanish works.

5. Sorry, I'm not sure I understand your answer – I'll rephrase. If I understand aright then in 1812 all Spanish infantry units adopted the same 8-Company organization (i.e. 6xFus, 1xGren, 1xCaz), replacing the previous 6-Company organizations (Line 4xFus, 1xGren, 1xCaz/Light 6xCaz). Was this merely a change in nomenclature for the Light Infantry units or did it reflect a more profound change in role?

From what I understand, and this may be incorrect because I read it a long time ago, The change reflected a greater reliance on line infantry skirmishing in support of the company of light infantry rather than relying on pure light infantry units. The Spanish also seemed to practice the same thing the British did: creating composite light battalions from the light companies in each brigade.

What sources are you using for the above information?

Hope that helps.

Bill

Bill,

My sources are the Chartrand Ospreys, plus a little bit from Nafziger and the Napoleonic Army Handbook.

I have to laugh about the real contradictions in the general views floating around concerning light infantry. On one hand you have many saying the French skirmished in large numbers during the early 1790s because their raw sans culottes weren't capable of carrying out regular infantry evolutions. Most nations light infantry up until the late 1790s including Britain were often Freecorps units of 'untrained', foreign, or volunteer troops who were seen as unable to do anything BUT skirmish. However, once we are in the Napoleonic period after 1800, raw troops are seen as unable to skirmish because they are untrained.

Good point. I suppose the answer is that it wasn't (too) hard to train a line infantryman or to create troops capable of skirmishing or the petite guerre but it was hard to combine the two roles in one soldier, the one (possibly) being a bit antithetical to the other?

Anyway, thanks again for your replies Bill.

Regards

I wish Osprey would do the courtesy of providing bibliographies with their histories. They seem to appear out of thin air, stating things without any way of tracking down the sources.

Argh.

Good Luck. Bill

Esdaile on the Spanish Light Infantry arm (from his ‘The Spanish Army in the Peninsular War'):

The attitude that was taken towards the light infantry is particularly indicative of the manner in which reformers failed to grasp the full implications of the tactical debate. Godoy certainly increased the proportion of light infantry in the Spanish army – indeed in 1802 he formed two new regiments, Campo Mayor and Navarra – but the continued organisation of these troops into separate units suggests that they were still regarded as agents of the petit guerre of the eighteenth century, rather than as a battlefield adjunct of the line infantry, as was increasingly the case in the rest of Europe. The old distinction between light and line infantry was fast disappearing, each battalion instead being provided with its own integral light company or simply being expected to send out a proportion of its strength as skirmishers as required, independent of its precise nomenclature.

In the Spanish Army, by contrast, the provision of skirmish cover was woefully inadequate. The regulations of 1802 had left the army with twelve light infantry regiments of six companies, but without a proper divisional organisation it was impossible to distribute these units on an even basis. The line infantry, meanwhile, were not trained to fight in open order. Nor were they provided with their own light companies, except in the case of a few units commanded by progressive officers who acted on their own intiative. The only official concession made in this direction by the new infantry regulations of 1802 was to adopt the Prussian practice of detailing a few men in each company – in this case eight – to act as skirmishers. A Spanish battalion of some 750 men could consequently deploy only thirty-two skirmishers compared with 100-150 of its French counterparts.

The absence of a proper tactical manual concerning their use ensured that the few skirmishers that the Spaniards could deploy would be very ill-trained. In addition, in 1806 the light infantry were deprived of the simple and practical costume by which they had hitherto been characterised…

I haven't had time to investigate the Spanish sources myself yet though – a lengthy business, even if I could read Spanish…

Anyway, I thought this excerpt might be of interest.

Regards

It is of interest. However, it reads like any discussion of Prussian, Austrian, Russian or even British development during the same time period, 1795-1808. It is the stock criticism of all the Allied nations at the time.

In 1802 the British were forming Light infantry and Rifle Regiments, the Prussians were increasing the size of their Fusilier force, The Russians had the first regular light infantry regiments, their Jagers, ahead of most all of the other nations. It wasn't until 1804-1805 that the French created light companies with their line battalions.

without a proper divisional organisation it was impossible to distribute these units on an even basis.

I am not quite sure how a 'proper divisional organization', whatever that is, allowed an 'even' distribution of light troops. Look at the British…when did they ever have an 'even' distribution of light troops between their divisions?

It is frustrating when the Spanish are criticized for not being French, before the French are. They chose to have designated skirmishers in each company…like the Prussians before 1806. Again the French, didn't have light companies until 1804…so the Spanish are castigated for being two years behind the French?

No tactical manual for the Spanish light infantry? The French never did have one. So, in this the Spanish were following the French practice…

The section does provide good information, but I find the conclusions give no thought to the general state of light infantry development in Europe at the time.

From my reading, every nation tried in a variety of ways to develop a light infantry capability, at different rates along the very same lines. For instance, the French and Prussians created twelve and twenty light infantry battalions at the same time the Spanish created their twelve. The French developement proved to be the fastest because they were at war most of that time--more motivation for speed.

Bill H.

Agreed.

Esdaile's criticisms are interesting because of who he is, but the detail of them does seem unfair. The 'suggests' in his first paragraph suggests to me that he doesn't really know. Indeed, although the Spanish Army had many faults, I haven't read anything yet which has shown me that light infantry numbers or tactics were a great problem for them (compared to say, its cavalry or its line infantry maneouvreing).

Regards