"Grenadiers versus good Line troops" Topic

If you allow that wargame rules are exercises in hopefully accurate generalisations, is it fair to say when rating, say Prussian grenadiers in terms of firing, melee & ability to manoeuvre, they are superior to line troops but not overwhelmingly so?

I am assuming that compared to Napoleonic troops, quality between troop types was not as marked.

I doubt it.

18th cent drill is everything, speed of manoeuvre, rate of fire, steadiness in action.
Better drilled troops will have a marked superiority over others.

One grenadier can beat 50 000 line infantry, two grandiers can beat 50 000 000 line infantry.

I'd maybe give the grenadiers a little extra in the morale category.

It all rather depends on which army you are talking about.

Russians: no difference vs line musketeers

French and Austrians – tend to be hand picked for special duties and have no permanent organization

British & Hanover: converged into semi permanent battalions that performed well in special task forces.

Prussia: permanent converged btn organization with same training as line musketeers. Often chosen to spear head assaults so maybe give them a morale edge

Fritz

I have often wondered if the Colonel did not really put his "best" troops in the grenadier and light companies. He knew that those companies would be stripped and converged, often operating hundreds of miles from the parent regiment.
So why not put all the bad apples in the flank companies?

Because of honour Winston, because honour!

So why not put all the bad apples in the flank companies?

Because of honour Winston, because honour!

Yeah, right …

In the Prussian case, the answer is simple: Because the King himself would inspect the troops at least once a year in peacetime, and campaign with many of the converged grenadiers in wartime. Any colonel who did not send his hardest marching, most reliable men to do the King's bidding would not keep his regiment for long…

Thanks, DAF.

That's what I thought but I appreciate the knowledge behind your response.

I'd still put my money on a grenadier unit over a line unit in a even fight.

I'd still put my money on a grenadier unit over a line unit in a even fight.

I think this depends on the army. Some armies merely put they're tallest soldiers in the grenadiers and guards. Others used veterans. I think you'd have to look at the selection process of each army.

Don't underestimate grenadiers and guard being full of the self.
E
If everyone says you are great and the best you will belive it. And have at least higher moral, if not training and skill.

I'd still put my money on a grenadier unit over a line unit in a even fight.

So would I…..which is what I wrote in the OP.

The question is- are they called grenadiers because they are better troops or simply because it sounds good?

Captain Parker noted that a hatman promoted to the grenadiers began carrying himself differently upon donning the Grenadier cap.

… and that' the other reason not to knowingly send any bad apples to the grenadiers: You'd devalue one of the few avenues of advancement that motivated your men.

With the later light companies, it's even clearer: Operating in open order, often in broken terrain, there'd be too many opportunities for going awol. Plus you had to have men you could trust screening you march or camp.

You'd devalue one of the few avenues of advancement that motivated your men.

But would men see being assigned to the grenadier company as "advancement"? It's not a promotion is it?

Yes, It's an elite corp, just as as light bobs during the AWI saw them self as elite.

It did also give you other advantages, often first dips on supplies, and probebly some got better pay.

Yes, It's an elite corp, just as as light bobs during the AWI saw them self as elite.

Lights did indeed consider themselves as elite troops, partly due to their different tactics, but I'm not sure the same is true of the grenadier companies. Got any evidence?

It did also give you other advantages, often first dips on supplies, and probebly some got better pay.

Again, can you offer any evidence to support these?

Spring's "Zeal and Bayonets" discusses this in some detail. It shows that at the start of the American War if Independence many (most?) Brit regts were simply sending the tallest and shortest men to grenadier and LI companies – ie the difference between them and hatmen was largely cosmetic. As the war progressed, the Brits instead started sending only reliable, tough men into those coys, because only those men could deal with the heavy demands made of the composite Gren and LI battalions, not least the exhausting long outflanking marches that they made to get into action at battles like Brandywine. And as one poster above said, men who are told they are elite start to believe it, and men who believe it are better in combat.

Judging by complaints of marauding and the pride some flankers took in their skill at 'living off the land'i.e pillaging, if men in the British flank battalions 1776-81 weren't ruffians when they joined their respective companies, they became so afterwards. Some of John Peebles' grenadiers from the 42nd were shameless. It might be a case of a certain sort of bad apple being a good soldier as long as he's kept busy on the flanks but a nightmare with the battalion or alternatively a reasonably good apple rising to the occasion and responding, perhaps, with enthusiasm to the flankers' group ethos away from the battalion.

Yup, that too seems to come out in Spring's "Zeal", in the chapter on motivation. Martin Hunter, 52nd light coy captain, reported how good the coy was at plundering – 'grab' or 'lob' depending on whether force was or wasn't needed – and how much pride they took in it. The way he recorded this without disapproval was in itself striking.

"It's not a promotion is it?"

Not sure about the British army , but in most European armies it was: Grenadiers were paid more than hatmen, and often not much less than corporals. One way to provide incentives for good men who were perhaps not cut for the career ladder (or just illiterate: sergeants had to know their letters).

Not sure about the British army , but in most European armies it was: Grenadiers were paid more than hatmen, and often not much less than corporals.

I don't think grenadiers were paid more than hatmen in the British Army. Can anyone verify this?

Lights did indeed consider themselves as elite troops, partly due to their different tactics, but I'm not sure the same is true of the grenadier companies

Whether in 1775, say, the distinction was token in relation to battlefield performance is another matter, but clearly the selection of stalwart and more experienced soldiers, predicated on the original function of grenadiers as specialist assault troops, dressing them in distinctive clothing and posting them on the right of the line, the 'position of honour,' did represent an élite in the true sense of being 'select' or 'chosen.'

Presumably, when forming his flank battalions in Halifax, Sir William Howe had some expectation of their performance and by September 1776 they were capable of delivering. John Peebles and Martin Hunter, amongst others do provide useful impressions of the ethos in grenadier and light battalions, respectively.

In a broad sense, the British grenadiers and light infantry battalions ended up looking pretty much alike in the field and employed the same tactics once battle was joined: "Dash in, Light Infantry!" The Corporal Jones Principle prevailed: "They don't like it up 'em!" Crude but effective although it could lead to mishaps, of course.