"Light, line, guard regiment how are the different?" Topic

Light, line, guard regiment how are the different? and how are they used. Sorry for the dumb question.

napoleonistyka.atspace.com

The above will give you a good start in learning about armies in the Napoleonic Wars.

Yup, also depending on the period the differences are more marked or less marked (for example 1813-1814 vs. 1792-1802)

They wear different outfits…

Guards have yellow underwear, line has blue and light as turqoise :)

Thanks everyone

Safest is answer involves status and pay: Line<Light<Guard. That can give you some indication of their relative value.

Probably much less difference than we are used to believing. Guard troops should be the best quality but sometimes were not used as often as crack "line" regiments so lacked experience, some guards were merely palace troops who had pretty uniforms and not much else. Other Guards were run-of-the-mill soldiers with a better title. Some line units were very good and were considered elite units others were poor and not much better than militia. Most troops could skirmish regardless of title- how good they were at it is another matter. Light units should have better training but this wasn't always the case. In the French army the difference between line and lights was really nothing more than the name of the unit.

I'm with Brunton Boy here. Don't let a name fool you. Grenadiers don't use grenades any more, and everybody skirmishes, not just the light co.

This is an in between period from a period where different infantry unit types were substantially different in training and mission (Seven Years War), to a time when all infantry is more or less the same (American Civil War). Some are good some are lousy but it comes down to the specific regiment/battalion at a specific time and place.

Maybe I should start another thread but, I would be interested in knowing what "line" regiments in the French, Austrian, Prussian, Russian and British armies would be considered "elite" as opposed to "crack".

could be considered "elite" as opposed to "crack".

Depends what you mean by "elite" and "crack".

In the French army the difference between line and lights was really nothing more than the name of the unit.

That is an incorrect statement. Although in organization, equipment, weapons and drill regulations they were different. The French light infantry arm had acquired, through hard service and experience, a tradition of dash and aggressiveness. They served as advance guards, flank guards, deployed rapidly and were expert skirmishers. They also retained the right to lead all attacks.

Napoleon attempted to assign one light infantry regiment to each of his infantry divisions, and that wasn't for show.

Did chasseurs in French light regiments get paid more than fusiliers in French line regiments?

For much of the Napoleonic period, entry into elite French formations required significant campaign service and other qualities including recommendations from managing officers. The composition of the elites WERE the veterans and there was much consternation of stripping line units of their most experienced soldiers. Guard units enjoyed higher pay, status and other benefits not available to the lower formations.

The French are often portrayed as a high spirited rabble but I think it was mostly a well honed martial machine. They took war seriously and were very good at it as history shows.

Yes, exceptions exist but generally guard units were superior to line. That's why I wrote it's the safest answer and certainly the opposite isn't generally true.

Light, line, guard regiment how are the different? and how are they used. Sorry for the dumb question.

Line regiments are the backbone of virtually every European army.They were used on attack and defense. They provided the firepower of the infantry arm. They are also the easiest to train and probably the most numerous.

Light infantry screened the line or main body. They kept the enemy light infantry at bay or even harassed the enemy main body. Where line infantry fought in compact formations light infantry fought (usually) in dispersed formations. Sometimes they also fought in line.

Guards are the most experienced and reliable troops in any army. They are usually the least numerous. They are drawn from the most experienced and well trained troops in the army. Usually they are employed as line troops and were often thrown in to administer the "coupe de gras" when the enemy army started to waver. They were also used to lead attacks against especially tough positions.

Is that what you were looking for or something more detailed?

Did chasseurs in French light regiments get paid more than fusiliers in French line regiments?

No-their pay was the same. The elite companies in both line and light units received high pay and were excused from fatigue duty.

@Kevin,

Thanks

I thought at first………. what a simplistic question. Then thought further and realised just how profound and how difficult to answer.

There is almost a book in it. "Elite Units of the Napoleonic Wars; a critical review". Uffindell's "Napoleon's Immortals" sat on my bookshelf for years, until I finally thought it might just be worth actually reading………and I found it brilliant on objectively assessing la Garde, its worth and its drawbacks.

The answer of Guard vs line units value must vary by country, but also by period. 1806 or 1815? Some guard units might be legendary at standing in line in a Stonewall fashion and dying to a man……….but of less use than a light unit when attacking a built up area. Louis XVIII's Maison du Roi certainly sported some of the best uniforms of the era but……….

Again, the best units could break and not always when expected. Carabiniers in the brass armour, put to flight by hussars…surely not. 95th might just have had few problems at Waterloo the story goes, despite probably getting my vote for one of the best units of the War. Red Lancers had a bad 1812 campaign they say.

I think that is why wargamers throw dice. I have often said that the Netherlands troops (well infantry and artillery anyway), threw sixes throughout 1815 and were far better than anticipated.

Depends on the army right?

French, your guards are the elite of the army, little can compare in experience.. Light and line are basically the same… Maybe the light have a little added dash or élan.

British, your only real elites are your rifles, who are light Infantry. Your guards and line are recruited and trained the same way. Your red coat light infantry here are possibly "better" than your guard as they have some special training.

Austria, you have your Grenadiers who would be the elite of their army, and Jagers who were rifle armed skirmishers… but had no guards.

Now you are talking! British Redcoat Lights better than Guards. I strongly suspect you are right (read that daft title, but great read, "The Lie at the Heart of Waterloo") and oddly enough, as far as I understand it, Guards indeed recruited same as Line.

We have all ignored cavalry. I do wonder if there it made a difference………..for some countries anyway…but then we are back to what you said above.

This is a subject for a book. It would sell!

Don't get me wrong… Your guards got a bit of extra razzamatazz no doubt… Their Sgts got flashy gold lace and they got a cushy job guarding the palace sometimes. But any could join the ranks… No special qualifications or owt.

There were no qualifications for light infantry either, except when being formed men who… weren't quite sharp enough, were transferred out. But they were at least trained up as lights.

ACTUAL elites though… Old and Middle guard and 95th 5/60th rifles… I'm not well enough versed on Russian and Prussian troops.

OK, let's have a go. Allowing for fluctuations through the era and that any unit could have an off day.

On a field, in a pitched battle;

95th, 60th ……..indeed almost any of Light Division.
Most of French Guard units, if Old or Middle.
KGL cavalry of any sort
Highlanders in kilts….
Artillery of almost any country.
Duke of Cumberland's Hussars and Black Musketeers of Louis XVIII…hang on, it is that bug again……..

It's a difficult question. As others have pointed being a Guards regiment didn't guarantee quality. On the other hand, Guard units picked the best recruits, were better paid and, most importantly, were better fed and supplied than line units (guaranteeing a better overall health, and therefore more stamina, both in the march and during battle). Also, they had, usually, better esprit de corps and therefore better morale than line units. In some cases they were formed by veterans of several campaigns, as happened witht eh French Guard; it was not by chance that Napoleon consistently used his Old and Middle Guard as his principal reserve force.

Said this, there were Guards and there were Guards. Neapolitan Royal Guard was sub-par if compared with most French or British Line infantry regiment, but probably better than other Neapolitan troops. Russian Guards, in the other hand, earned their regard as elite troops in dozens of battlefields from 1812 to 1814.

But guards in general were selected through the ranks. The better/experienced soldier became a guard in his vocation if he survived. So the Neopolitan sub-par guard came from the Neopolitan sub-par line troops.

The Brunswick Legion was probably a site to behold with their black uniforms and colorful trim but they didn't exactly distinguish themselves at Waterloo.

Who asked etc.

I don't think you can generalise like that. In GB guards were recruited directly into guard regiments. In Russia some guards were picked for their height. In France most guards came though campaigns but some guard regiments were conscripts – picked conscripts, but conscripts nonetheless.

But guards in general were selected through the ranks.

That was the case only of the French Guard (they must have served at least in 1 campaign -Young Guard- and 3 or more for the Middle and Old Guard) and Northern Italian Royal Guard, and that was because Napoleon did want a Guard formed only by veterans of several campaigns and proven valour. He was the exception rather than the norm, though. In other countries, Guard units were kept up to strength by picking up recruits from the depots. Guard officers had the first pick, and could chose the best recruits. At least that's what happened in the Russian, British, Prussian and Spanish Guards.

It can be argued that by taking from line regiments the best and more experienced soldiers, Napoleon was making himself a disservice. I am not sure that is correct. Superficially might sound right, but except in the years immediately after the disaster in Russia French army line regiments didn't show a worse performance even though the Guard was heavily expanded.

The Brunswick Legion was probably a site to behold with their black uniforms and colorful trim but they didn't exactly distinguish themselves at Waterloo.

Sorry, but I fail to see what that has to do with the topic of the Guards.

The discussion sees to be morphing into discussion of elites, or who was 'best.'

Light infantry, Line and Guard units were obviously distinguished by differences in uniform, which in some instances reflected their battlefield role, but not necessarily, given the constant tendency of practical elements in uniforms to be formalised on the basis of smartness rather than effectiveness.

Light Infantry were meant to be more mobile and skilled in skirmishing, although it depended on individual circumstances whether this was in fact the case. The Line were the standard, Mark One infantry man, cannon fodder if you like, with some regiments better than others, some with a long-established reputation for excellence that was merited, others wearing laurels that had become rather faded and crumpled, but even good regiments could have bad days or be unlucky.

Guard units were meant to be elite in the true sense of 'chosen.' Men of the Imperial Guard were selected for experience, as has been explained, the British Foot Guards got the pick of the best physical specimens, in theory, which meant they tended to be larger, more robust men. Being on duty guarding the Monarch meant they were smarter, better drilled and had high esprit de corps, all of which could translate into battlefield effectiveness, which generally was the case, but nonetheless they operated as line infantry. The British rifle corps were also elite in that the men were selected for aptitude and trained in special skills of markmanship and independent action, which an average line infantryman could not deliver. With high esprit de corps, these troops could also have a bad day, particularly if not employed to make the most of their skills and training.

As has been said, grenadier regiments were no longer equipped with hand grenades in the late C18th, but the term still denoted a body of troops with the physical and moral characteristics of the original assault troops of the C17th, and grenadier companies within line infantry battalions represented troops with the same qualities, the chosen men of the unit. In this way grenadiers might also be regarded as elite. Grenadiers, as we know, could also have a bad day.

Found an exception to the practice in Napoleon's Guard of taking veterans only. The Velites of the Guard that were ordered to go to Spain in April 1810 had been recruited by conscription (Correspondence. Lettre 23520. Napoleon to Berthier, April 27, 1810). The regiment replaced the regiment of Fusiliers in Dumoustier's Brigade (Dorsenne's Division)

More exceptions

Gendarmes d'Ordonnance

Found an exception to the practice in Napoleon's Guard of taking veterans only. The Velites of the Guard that were ordered to go to Spain in April 1810 had been recruited by conscription (Correspondence. Lettre 23520. Napoleon to Berthier, April 27, 1810). The regiment replaced the regiment of Fusiliers in Dumoustier's Brigade (Dorsenne's Division)

Additionally, Napoleon to Bessieres April 1810:

I wish to increase the dragoons, chasseurs and grenadiers [a cheval] of my Guard in Spain, by taking from my Velites men who have not campaigned much and who need to do so in order to gain experience (my emphasis)…I will replace the velites through the conscription route…

However, did they not have the pick of the conscript class?

@Janner,

Yes at this point. But there may be a difference between best of the conscripts (and we may wonder how good selection procedures were to determine the 'best') and the qualifications traditionally assumed to obtain to Napoleonic guardsmen.

Whirlwind

Be careful and don't throw the baby with the water, yet. As we have seen not all the French Guard were veterans of several campaigns. However, it would be a mistake to assume that it was common to pick untested recruits directly from depots for the Guard. So far we have only find that in the Velites of the Young Guard the ranks were filled up with recruits or with soldiers that had not a lot of experience.

I guess than in 1813-1814, in the Young Guard at least, the standards possibly were lowered to fill the gaps left by the losses in Russia. In his study of the campaign in 1813, Michael Leggiere afirms that in Hamburg the civilian unrest that lead to the city to fall into Allied hands started when the Prefecture Guard (formed by the sons of the wealthy families in Hamburg) was ordered (February 1813) to provide replacements for the Imperial Guard [See. Michael V. Leggiere "Napoleon and struggle for Germany. The Franco-Prussian War of 1813" Cambridge, Cambridge UP, 2015; vol. 1, pag. 139]

While this anecdote reinforces the idea that the gaps in the Imperial Guard were filled by non-veterans (Hamburg's Prefecture Guard weren't precisely old "grognards"), the evidence only points to the Young Guard. Moreover, even if this is true and a significative percentage of the Young Guard was formed by conscripts, it must be also recognized that their performance in the campaigns in Germany and France more than justifies their status as the elite of the French army.

Best
A.

I would suggest taking another look at the Imperial Guard, who was eligible for induction into the Guard, and who and what the different units were.

The Guard was not only Napoleon's reserve, but it also functioned as a military school.

And the Guard's origins are also interesting and they came from at least two different sources.

For example, the Velites were added to the Guard infantry in 1804 and to the Guard cavalry in 1805. They were basically students who wanted to become officers and enlisted in the Guard to learn how. They spent three years as velites and then were tested on their knowledge and acquired skill and if they passed they were granted commissions as sous-lieutenants in the line. They could also be sent as fourriers to the line or be accepted into the Guard as either a private or a corporal. They could also be sent to one of the advanced military schools.

Both Jean Barres and Thomas Bugeaud began their service as Velites.

Each infantry regiment had a battalion of velites. The cavalry had a squadron. On campaign they were intermixed with the veterans and there were no separate velite units in the field. Napoleon stopped accepting velites in the infantry in 1807. Those that remained were either commissioned eventually or were sent to the Guard Fusilier regiments. The Guard cavalry kept them until 1811 but the 2d Guard Lancer Regiment still had them afterwards.

The Young Guard did serve in Spain, but there were no Guard velite regiments.

The Young Guard was recruited from 'the pick of the conscripts' and had to work their way up if they wanted to remain in the Guard and not be sent to the line. They were supposed to be the 'strongest and best-educated men from the current class of conscripts.'

The Young Guard was formed in 1809 around cadres taken from the Old Guard.

The two Fusilier regiments were formed during the fall and winter of 1806 around cadres from the senior Guard infantry regiments. Their personnel came from the remaining velites, troops picked from line regiments and from the Legions Departementales.

The actual Guard hierarchy of who was Old, Middle, and Young Guard was established only in 1812.

In 1811 Napoleon established the Guard Battalion of Instruction at Fontainebleu which was actually three battalions to train sergeants and corporals. The graduates served as cadremen for new line regiments. The Old Guard administered the school and the instructors were 'the pick' of the Old Guard and St Cyr. Napoleon also formed a Guard music school in 1811 for drummers and trumpeters.

Be careful and don't throw the baby with the water, yet. As we have seen not all the French Guard were veterans of several campaigns. However, it would be a mistake to assume that it was common to pick untested recruits directly from depots for the Guard. So far we have only find that in the Velites of the Young Guard the ranks were filled up with recruits or with soldiers that had not a lot of experience.

Totally agreed. TBH I was more surprised that it was done at all and mereley suggest that this could be looked at more carefully.

Moreover, even if this is true and a significative percentage of the Young Guard was formed by conscripts, it must be also recognized that their performance in the campaigns in Germany and France more than justifies their status as the elite of the French army.

I'm not sure I agree with this with regard to the Young Guard in 1813-14. I will return to this presently.

I thought mention of the Brunswickers actually did illustrate just how hard this is to answer. The Brunswickers at Waterloo seem to have been a very different bunch from those in the Peninsula. Youngsters who stood their ground in 1815, but were far from veterans.

'm not sure I agree with this with regard to the Young Guard in 1813-14. I will return to this presently.

Agreed. Re-reading my statement I think I should qualify it.

So, returning to the OP, the essential principle that distinguished Napoleon's Imperial Guard from the Line was- what?

"They were, like, more cool", is how contemporary youth would put it. Actually, in UK, only girls would use the "like" bit and follow it with "so". Do not get me started on med students these days. EEEH, when I were a lad……..

So, returning to the OP, the essential principle that distinguished Napoleon's Imperial Guard from the Line was- what?

Pay, rewards, health, experience, elan, esprit de corps and morale. Almost forgot: they needed to have a modicum of education and know how to write and read, which was not a small achievement back in the early XIXth Century for most people.

and this, in turn, generally speaking, translated into greater effectiveness in the field?

Well, apparently that it's what Napoleon thought, and his Guard performance in the field justified his trust most of the time, so I guess that the answer is yes, it did.

Well trained and experienced soldiers, under quality leadership, and enjoying enhanced status and terms of service – sounds like a winning combination to me

Well, there we are, then.