"Difference between SYW and Napoleonics?" Topic

Pardon if this sounds naive, but what are the major difference between the tactics of the SYW and Napoleonic battles? To a newcomer like myself, they seem very similar apart from uniforms.

Huge. At least the later Napoleonic Wars … too huge a subject to even approach doing it justice here. There are many, many books that cover this subject.

First were the hats.
But N Hugh Mann is right the complexity.

Not complaining but this was done not long ago I think, but my explanation was going from linear tactics to impulse, Armies to "small armies" or corps as larger maneuver elements. And of course prettier uniforms, and the Prussians had more colorful flags till the Frenchy's took them away in 1806

Can't find the earlier thread, but the differences are way beyond tricorns or shakos.

Napoleonics saw extensive use of skirmishers, attack columns, armies marching and fighting in corps, etc.

SYW had smaller armies usally marching in one column and line as the main combat formation. Also, guns were heavier and less mobile. More wigs, too.

Oh dear

Bricoles. It's all about the bricoles.

One was in the 18th Century and the other was mostly in the 19th Century. A whole scad of other minor details, enough for a book on the subject maybe two!

its like comparing WW1 to WW2, but with WW1 technology- probably

I'm with Connard..

See this, might help TMP link

If you can find a copy of Richard K. Riehn's '1812: Napoleon's Russian Campaign' there is a chapter entitled The New Ways of War which seems to me to be a good summary of the tactical evolution.

Bill

The TMP SYW boards tend to be more civil.

Rick

Smaller scale battles – bigger scale battles

Dragooned peasants – nation under arms

Limited strategic aims (well, except for the Brits) – global domination

And like the Security Minister says – there's the hats

Horse artillery.

As I was the last eejit who asked this question last year :), I think it behooves me to summarise – so (in no particular order) it was:

(1) Smaller armies, of better trained troops, who therefore
(2) Could use linear tactics and
(3) Thus didn't need skirmishers, who were used instead to seize difficult ground.
(4) The well trained line troops could even repulse cavalry, who
(5) Were still speeding up to charge at the gallop in formation, (thus reducing the time to shoot) and
(5) Thus there was no real need to form square etc, plus
(6) The artillery limbers were heavier so it couldn't move up as fast
(7) The American and French revolutionary armies didn't play fair and used swarms of skirmishers so line units then had to throw out their own skirmishers, at the same time
(8) Conscripts were less well trained so it was easier to manouvre them in mass columns, and only
(9) The best line troops could stop a massed column with pure firepower, but
(10) Their number were decraesing too as they a % and as they got shot

And of course, there were no Tricornes!

Read Brent Nosworthy:

With Musket, Cannon and Sword: Battle Tactics of Napoleon and His Enemies OR depending where you live, Battle Tactics of Napoleon and His Enemies.

Same book just different sides of the Atlantic!

Second the nosworthy -- the book addresses exactly this question in the opening chapters.

Hi

Napoleonic gamers are OCD and get obsessed over details in such a way that they cannot see any similarity with anything past or present.

R

Thanks for the info, Freecloud. That really helps me. Also thanks for the book references as well. At least I got some useful info now. With so much info out there it's hard to decide where to start.

Both periods are great and there are lots of figs in lots of scale for both

You might want to think about what gamers in you area like to play/have available already

Or you could be an idiot like me and do both (I started with SYW on the naive notion it would be easier as the armies were smaller)

SYW – Lack of Powergamers and rules lawyers. Elegant uniforms and linear battle tactics. Battles are often decided by army morale and withdrawal (when I command 15-mm SYW troops!)…

Napoleonics – Stunning uniforms and epic, large scale battles. Downside is that there is too much to do (paint). You're best just doing two different sides (French and British, Austrians, or Russians).

Troop types come in half a dozen flavors, not Baskin Robin or Heinz varieties.

And the French aren't supermen

Chuck Nosworthy in the bin first.

The key difference is the move from a campaign, won essentially by outmanoeuvring the enemy to force a favourable settlement to a quest for total victory – kind of the reverse of WW2 compared with many limited objective campaigns fought subsequently.

The size of armies is most obvious difference – Wagram and Leipzig were multi-day affairs fought by 140 v 180K and 320K v 180K respectively. This is truly industrial warfare, where the resources of the state are fully applied to the war.

Tactically, the change was the same – lines were still important in the Nap Wars, but the densioty of men per mile was much greater and columns become means of movement on the battlefield rather than just on to it. Artillery is much moire effective with mobile guns, which were effective, lighter and more accurate. The means to support thes etroops is greatly aided by mass production methods, so the kit can be found to put increasingly less well-trained and non-professional troops into the field.

Artillery became more mobile, and thus more used (militarizing drivers helped, too). Horse cavalry as well.

Conscription making armies hundreds of thousands instead of tens of thousands. Liberal foraging instead of arsenals.

Most of the rest was the same.

For Nap vs 7YW, Nap artillery was lighter to move, better built thus more powerful, more plentiful, better ammo options

Nap Cavalry doctrines and tactics made this a more powerful arm than in 7YW, especially the light cavalry which could now have a role on the battlefield as well as foraging/scouting.

Infantry were often recruited in masses, not smaller professional and highly trained armies. This resulted in a change of tactics to accommodate less shooting skills in most armies, and a mobility of commanders in some armies to reflect ability more than had previously been the case. Emergence of Light infantry as a fully developed & significant arm of service.

Logistics were therefore more complicated for most (larger) armies. Command and control styles were amended for most armies during the period as they more or less copied the French Corps system and all it could entail/allow.

Not all of these happened at the same time in all nations. Saxons were still fighting a 7YW right up into the middle of the nap period. Prussia up to and including 1806 is a 7YW
army. Austria never quite achieved Napoleonic Corps orientations or meritorious officer selection. As for Russia??? Well…! Slow and steady change for most of it, except for the artillery. Britain of course did things its own way, as is our birthright as Britons :o). Results varied from the dire at Walcheren, the merely incompetent in parts of the Americas, to the magnificent in Spain/France/Belgium. Winning by muddling through, low level defiance, grit and courage, and a few Dunkirks thanks to the Navy when things got a bit stressed.

Think of 7Yw as a halfway house between Marlburian and Naps.

Not Only were the Napoleoinc armies much bigger, but pound for pound sevral times more bloody, no war in histroy has been as bloody minute for minute as the Napoleoic war, only WW1 comes close.

"Austria never quite achieved Napoleonic Corps orientations or meritorious officer selection"

Write out 100 times: "I must not believe secondhand mythology" (and then buy Osprey Elite 101 and Armies of the Napoleonic Wars (P&S/ed.Fremont Barnes) as I have specifically addressed this mythology!).

Chuck Nosworthy in the bin first

Oh of course, another book you didn't write! Silly me!

I didn't think very much of Nosworthy's Napleonic book. It is a long time since I read it but as I remember he invented a term to explain Napoleonic warfare as a whole which didn't really convince me. His one on 18th Century was better I thought.

Trajanus – Grow up a bit. If a book is no good, sourced from second hand claims and mythology, it is only worthy of the bin. Take his first chapter – Lodi (wrong on artillery ballistics), Marengo (reproducing French propaganda), Sedyman (I expect most people have to look that one up!). His truthful bibliography and footnotes show just how worthless it is. Now, cut the insults and address the issue.

I cannot nominate you for the Tendency as I am pretty sure Kevin agrees with me on this one!

Hollins, grow up a bit yourself. Cut the insults and people might listen to you. This wasn't part of the neverending kiley versus hollins fight here, no need to jump right in and start slurring all the other authors, in the bluntest possible terms. Cool your hot blood and give some suggestions for texts that you think ARE good, instead of pulling out your hose all over Nosworthy…

Cpt Arexu
Neither a Kiley not a Hollins supporter, and damned tired of seeing both of you bickering on TMP. Get a room already.

That is the problem here, Mr Hollins – there is no other comparable book to Nosworthy to suggest in his place, and provided he is read in conjunction with a couple of other good books, he has much useful information for the reader on the subject of tactics.

Nafziger won't help you on his own – assuming you can still find a copy – Muir sits nicely with the three of them.

I'd be interested if you can suggest a fourth, and be happy to buy it if you wrote one.

Oh, my gosh! Exhibit A,B and C above as to the differences.

SYW, much more 'civilized' – even 250 years later. And the only place it gets fought nowadays is on the tabletop. Jesus wept! This is getting ridiculous!!!

Arexu – calm down – it was a joke as Kevin and I (and Peter Hofschroer for that matter) actually agree on this one.

If anyone is unhappy about the standard of discussion on here, then "Oh of course, another book you didn't write! Silly me!" isn't that helpful, is it?

I have already written quite a bit about my own area of expertise in the Warriors and NV72. To write more would require hours and hours of work for little reward and the attacks of the fundamentalists, to which I am apparently not even allowed to respond. Maybe if one or two of you had told Kiley and the tendency to wind their necks in some time ago, it might be different. Instead there seems to be some expectation that I and others should do a load of work, but then you hold up secondhand mythology as worthwhile work.

SYW is done with 25mm figures and a lot of detailed painting. Napoleonics are done with 15mm and a much larger number of figures.

At least that's the way its done here,,,,,, not couting my pool que stick with the different colored bands.

I think you need to work on your inclusion of smileys or other indicators of 'humor, Dave.

As for asking you to do a load of work but holding up "secondhand mythology", I'd like to point out:

1) The whole point of the thread is asking for information. You answered his question, but only after snarking at Nosworthy. Props for adding information, brickbats for the snark.

2) I haven't held up ANYBODY's work, I've complained about your jumping in with the boot first. CAN you suggest a better reference for the question?

I would suggest several of the Osprey Warriors.

If anyone is unhappy about the standard of discussion on here, then "Oh of course, another book you didn't write! Silly me!" isn't that helpful, is it?

No of course it isn't helpful and wasn't meant to be.

On the other hand "Chuck Nosworthy in the bin first" was I suppose?

That is the problem here, Mr Hollins – there is no other comparable book to Nosworthy to suggest in his place, and provided he is read in conjunction with a couple of other good books, he has much useful information for the reader on the subject of tactics

Puts the counter argument very nicely.

I don't think many on this Board (including me) would doubt the depth and quality of your knowledge Dave but perhaps some of us would wish that you take a breath before kicking the stool out from under every author you take issue with, without an explanation as to why they don't pass muster!

I note you gave some reasons after my sarcasm, would you have done so without it?

Of course I would, whether I was asked or had something sarcastic posted my way. I will quite happily answer any reasonable question. Nosworthy is just nonsense from start to finish – someone posted some time ago that his 18th century book went well (I haven't read it, so cannot say anything about it) and so, he was pushed for a Nap one, which was qucikly thrown together – and it reads like it. All that nonsense in the first chapter followed by all the tired stuff about 180(not sure) "reaction. It is just rubbish. You can see from his fns and bibliography that it is all second/third hand written without any attempt to understand it – and for heaven's sake, Nolan on cavalry??

Why did Bonaparte wear red bricoles?

To hold up his Nappys.

for heaven's sake, Nolan on cavalry??

Now that one I will gladly give you!

Its a bit hard to be cited as a first hand source for the Napoleonic Wars when you weren't born until 1818! :o)

I think the overall problem here is the Catch 22 we have touched on several times on this Board.

How do you know you are reading an authoritative source without having gained the knowledge to judge by reading authoritative sources?

All the more so when so many of what deep Napoleonic thinkers regard as 'proper' sources are still not available to non English speakers, if at all. When people ask for advice on reading material others are always going to give them the names of what's available, or what they know.

I'm open to suggestion on what would be a good one volume source in this instance – I can't think of another.

Offering a series of treatise in French or Old German to most people who come here is not going to further their interest.

And that's not a comment aimed at you BTW, its an observation.

Hi

I would toss in a further observation. As an avid reader, I have no problem readind and retaining the "stuff".

The problem is often "civil behavior". If you read in the F&I and come to some conclusion not held by others, you have a discussion. If you read 7YW, same thing. There is something about Napoleon where the attitude is just wrong.

If you haven't the "correct" idea in the mind of the guy you are talking to, you get rude responses, much like some of these above.

Not sure why. My usual response with this area is read the initial couple posts and then bale out when it becomes heated.

I don't think the fate of the universe is on hand if you have a "wrong" opinion. But some gamers seem to tie their civil behavior and even friendships based on silence or agreement.

Rocky

The other groups do not seem to be afflicted by an Idiot Tendency or Keepers of the True Flame, whose intention is to blot out anything new.

You have to remember that the literature on Naps is vast compared with 7YW etc. The Austrian Staff History of the Succession Wars is 8 volumes – Krieg 1809 would have been 5 volumes if WW1 had not intervened! More importantly perhaps, a certain propaganda was successfully developed at the time, reinforced in the late 19th century and magnified even more by events in the 20th. It is very hard to break down this multi-layered fantasy and sometimes, you simply have to take it head on (such as my hopefully jokey but direct response on the Austrian officer corps above). So much of it is just rubbish – and you can establish this very simply by looking at the source material – but you are trying to tell people, who have for many years thought it was the truth. We do have sensible discussions here an elsewhere, but the Tendency drag it into insult, precisely to shut out the new material.

Trajanus – there is no point recommending bad material. There is no single volume as such – even amongst the old materials – because it would require a bunch of people, who could read four major languages and understand at least five major nations with the time and access to a mountain of material (look at Digby's OB book to see the number of actions involved) to write such a book. Even then, would readers buy it, especially if the Keepers get on Amazon? The material has been published, often individually by nation, but enthisiasts have not supported it well, although Osprey's current series is doing quite well I think and one day, might be a cut-and-shut.

The other groups do not seem to be afflicted by an Idiot Tendency or Keepers of the True Flame, whose intention is to blot out anything new.

the other groups aren't afflicted by you and your snide remarks either chap.

You aren't the final arbiter of Napoleonic fact. Get over yourself

Connard,

Remnove the Gang of Four and imagine what the Naps board would be like.

Bill

but if they were all gone, what would the rest of us do in the office all day?

A number of Osprey books that look to be on topic:
Warrior 19, 42, 51, 62, 88, 126
Man at Arms 5, 6
Empires Collide (a collection of Ospreys into one book)

You forgot 24, 81, 57 and 63. Then there is the Elite subseries. NV72 also includes tactical artilelry info.

I did not have to check to the left of this thread to known it was posted also on the Napoleonic board…

French Revolutionary armies lacked the 'professionalism' to manoeuvre like ballet dancers on the battlefield, and even more, to remain cool and steady when a dense line of 'regular' infantrymen were pouring volley after volley in their ranks from 100 paces or less. So they broke into wild charges or dispersed as skirmishers. The same for the need to form square to face threatening cavalry. These new practices were then regulated, so much the more as the casualties accumulated during some 20 years of almost uninterrupted war meant that new, green recruits were constantly added to fill the ranks, and 100% professional units were now -for a time- a luxury of the past.