"Why Chasseurs of the Guard?" Topic

So the Old Guard infantry regiments comprised Grenadiers, a recognised elite troop type. But also Chasseurs. What was so special about light infantry peons that they merited having their name attached to Old Guard infantry who were not light infantry?

Chassuers in the French army were an old troop type going back to at least 1743 when Fischer's chasseurs were formed as light infantry for an all arms raiding corps. Light infantry were rapidly considered an elite because unlike the line troops they had to fight in loose order and were thus required to an extent to act for themselves and be self-motivated. Line troops needed light troops to screen and protect them, I assume the Guard was no different.

The different height requirements maybe?

It is my understanding that the chasseur of the guards were not light infantry. My wargame rules do not treat them as such but rather heavy guard. Middle Guard or more likely Young guard were more light infantry but I doubt any of these really skirmished or perform light infantry functions. They were all shock troops. I think Napoleon just liked to have lots of different names to his troop types.

By the time any guard took the field, they needed no screening as the line troops had gone before them.

I think Napoleon just liked to have lots of different names to his troop types.

So he was a wargamer?

It is my understanding that the chasseur of the guards were not light infantry.

Nope. The Old Guard Chasseurs were used as light infantry on numerous occasions including the Guard's last assault at Waterloo.

The Grenadiers also skirmished at times.

In other words, the Guards were special, but only special in their skill and renown, not the work they did on the battlefield when they were called upon. The did the work of infantry--in all its forms.

G'Day Gents

Originally with the Garde des Consuls on the 28th of November 1799, it was considered necessary to create two bataillons de grenadier a pied and one compagnie d'infanterie legere (as tirailleurs for the two battalions)…

Of course the other force de garde were created as well.

From there the Chasseurs grew…

As Bill already mentioned…all guard infantry were en tirailleur in 1815…

But the reason the Young Garde were formed with six sub-factions was due to them being exposed to artillery like the line infantry…

And since they did not have to worry about le regle des endivisionment due to having only two elite pelotons…they could easily detach a compagnie en tirailleur whether en colonne par division or colonne par attaque. They did not have the same sub-faction tactical issues like the rest of the line battalions when detaching skirmishers.

The Old Guard were kept in reserve…therefore they could keep the 8 sub-factions tactical system…and it also made it easier to detach tirailleurs…

In 1815 there was no Middle Guard…and at Plancenoit you have first hand accounts of both Young and Old Guard detaching pelotons and compagnies en tiraillerus

Best regards
Art

I'm with Art, this is my understanding too, from everything I've read, albeit I don't read French sources very well.

Good stuff Art, very clear, confirms my own thinking, always appreciate your thoughtful and well informed contributions.

Just tradition really. The Guard Chasseurs were formed and named before 'Voltiguers', 'Carabiniers' etc came into use as titles for elite light infantry, and as they had already gained much glory as Chasseurs- they just stuck with it.

Agree with the comments on capability of Old Guard infantry- both Grenadiers and Chasseurs were fully capable of acting efficiently as light infantry as required.

Art is correct. And the Old Guard Chasseurs were used as light infantry. One noteworthy episode was at Hanau in 1813 when they attacked in open order while the grenadiers attacked in line.

And it is also noteworthy that there was no Middle Guard in 1815-Young Guard and Old Guard only.

And the Old Guard Chasseurs were used as light infantry. One noteworthy episode was at Hanau in 1813 when they attacked in open order while the grenadiers attacked in line

Is there a primary source account of this one anywhere?

Andrew Field in "Waterloo: the French perspective" describes the Guard in Plancenoit assuming a skirmish order formation spontaneously in reaction to the incoming fire. I wonder if there is a distinction to be drawn between light infantry operating as skirmishers in a formal way versus line / close order troops shaking out into a looser formation that looked similar.

Andrew Field in "Waterloo: the French perspective" describes the Guard in Plancenoit assuming a skirmish order formation spontaneously in reaction to the incoming fire.

I am finding a number of places where the French did just that, 'dissolve' into skirmishers under fire or rather 'spontaneously'. It could create problems. Here are a few examples:

The French Campaign in Portugal, 1810-1811
An Account by Jean Jacques Pelet. Translated by Donald D. Horward 1973 Page 181 [at Busacco]

Our brigade, [of Marchand's division] attacked on its flank by artillery, was thrown to the left of the road. After fighting for some time, it found itself almost entirely dispersed into groups of skirmishers, and in the end it was necessary to support this unit with the second brigade. Thus we covered the entire slope below the convent of Bussaco while the enemy successively reinforced their line of skirmishers, hidden behind the rocks and the trees, but these Allied troops were not allowed to stay there very long, they were recalled by horns and replaced by fresh troops—an excellent method neglected by us for too long. Our system permitted the French regiments to be dispersed during a battle and in the end only the officers and bravest soldiers were left, and they were completely disgusted, even with having to fight for an entire day. The Portuguese were interspersed among the British; they acted perfectly, serving in the covered positions. Nevertheless, our skirmishers gained ground on the enemy and from time to t time pushed them beyond the reserves, which they were obliged to reinforce.

The Report of the 16e Legere, Augereau's Corps, at Jena:

The regiment advanced [in column] left in front towards the woods: the third battalion advanced into the woods in skirmishing order; the [other] two first marching in column, went past the right of the woods and deployed in the plain [or meadow] at musketry range from the enemy artillery. This line formed, toward the enemy line, they approached to pistol range; they threw themeselves into skirmishing order [se precipitant de la en tirailleurs] and immediately and energetically seized 11 pieces of artillery.

Echoing Pelet: Grivet – Études sur la Tactique (1865)

It is a fault of the French infantry, to disband in the attack and not to preserve the ranks enough; it has resulted in some disasters, because the enemy cavalry, arriving unexpectedly, always gets the better of these dispersed soldiers whose ardor carries too far. We find numerous examples of this type. Such were the formations, such were the maneuvers of the French infantry at Austerlitz. [Not all maneuvers, but some, such as the 1/4e Ligne]

I have a number of examples, but you get the idea. This dispersal seems to be in response to artillery fire at times. It also seems to be [if Pelet is correct in calling it "the French system"] that it could be done without any reserves or formal skirmish structure.

So he was a wargamer?

Yes, except his soldiers bled, leaving widows and orphans.

@ McLaddie

Thanks, those are interesting. A common theme in Waterloo memoirs from the allied side is reports from those who were in square of coming under a destructive fire from large numbers of skirmishers. Leeke reports this as does Mercer, for example. I have long been puzzled as to what light infantry formation was doing this, but it seems likely that this was in fact the eastmost units of Jerome's corps making their presence felt. Evidently they were too few or their leaders too preoccupied to marshal them into a proper formed supporting attack. If infantry tended to assume a skirmish formation when under artillery fire this suggests that the incoming fire from Wellingtons artillery was itself pretty destructive. An oddity of most accounts of this phase of the battle is that they usually describe the French overrunning the allied line with impunity and then suddenly losing. It starts to look like the incoming fire from the ridge may explain first Ney's need for fresh troops (those on hand had put themselves into skirmish order and were staying there) and the 50% cavalry losses?

@McLaddie,

I find the one from 16th Light very hard to understand. Why go into skirmisher order at pistol range?

@4th Cuirassier,

An oddity of most accounts of this phase of the battle is that they usually describe the French overrunning the allied line with impunity and then suddenly losing

Do they say that? I'm not sure I have read one that indicates that the French were overruning the Allied line with impunity.

I find the one from 16th Light very hard to understand. Why go into skirmisher order at pistol range?

Whirlwind:

To avoid being hit by canister? Confuse the Prussians? Pistol range would have been under fifty yards.

But to tell the truth, I have never seen a reason for it. Obviously, the report says they did it without explanation, so it wasn't all that unique a move. And there are other accounts describing the same going to skirmish order in response to artillery fire.

And for Pelet and Grivet, it wasn't always a successful tactic.

4th Cuirassier:

The skirmishers could well have been line infantry and not necessarily light/legere formations. Jerome deployed both as tirailleurs during Waterloo.

To avoid being hit by canister? Confuse the Prussians? Pistol range would have been under fifty yards.

But to tell the truth, I have never seen a reason for it. Obviously, the report says they did it without explanation, so it wasn't all that unique a move. And there are other accounts describing the same going to skirmish order in response to artillery fire.

It seems odd to do it at that range though, since the attacking infantry had already passed through a lot of artillery fire. It also seems to close (very short range for cannister) to do it as a controlled tactical choice. The mechanics are odd too. 11 guns captured implies a couple of batteries, with roughly the same frontage as a singe battalion in line. Going into skirmish order would necessarily have extended the frontage of the infantry past this.

@ Whirlwind
I'm not sure I have read one that indicates that the French were overruning the Allied line with impunity.

Andrew Field and Tim Clayton both say this. It is also common to read authors' musings as to why the cavalry didn't spike the guns. This would have entailed dismounting and faffing about with hammers and nails, so if it really were a possibility, the squares must have been constructively overrun (although this is to assume one's conclusion).

@ McLaddie
Pistol range would have been under fifty yards.

From what I've read it would have been under fifty inches :-) – more seriously, Elting reckons French cuirasses were originally supposed to proved against pistol bullets at thirty yards. I am reminded of that quote about one's being very unlucky to be hit at 200 yards by a musket that had actually been aimed at you.

The skirmishers could well have been line infantry and not necessarily light/legere formation

That's my supposition, and if so, then this may be a better explanation of why Ney appealed to Napoleon for the use of the Guard. Some of Jerome's Corps was embroiled in Hougoumont, but those that weren't were in spontaneous skirmish order and not about to close up any time soon, thanks. As open order would be suicide in the face of cavalry, I infer that at this locale and juncture, the French had cavalry supremacy, plenty of infantry, but nobody to organise the formed infantry attack on the squares that Ney could see was needed. The obvious reason to stay in loose order would have to be the volume of fire coming from Wellington's lines, which would have to be artillery fire.

And the recent books suggest D'Erlon's corps was in a dense skirmish line after the main attack

It isn't merely recent books. The French infantry attacked in skirmish swarms supported by close range artillery fire after the failure of the cavalry attacks. This is talked about in Siborne's history. The French artillery fire was demolishing allied squares at point-blank range and cavalry was also present to keep the allied infantry formed in squares.

As an aside, I think it is a bit of slight of hand to suggest that there was no Middle Guard at Waterloo. Only the two senior regiments of the Grenadiers and Chasseurs were considered true Old Guard. The fact that the 3rd and 4th Grenadier and Chasseur Regiments were placed in the same division with the 1st and 2nd doesn't mean that they were considered Old Guard in the sense that we commonly use today. The two later regiments in both divisions conform to what I think most of us would consider to be the Middle Guard of past times.

@ Marcus

They aren't held to be Old Guard because they were in the same division as the Old Guard, but because they were designated Old Guard by the War Ministry. As Davout was the minister concerned in 1815, and can be taken to have known a thing or two, I think he and they count as an authority.

The junior grenadier and chasseur regiments were Middle Guard in 1814, along with the Fusiliers etc, but in 1815 these either didn't exist or had been reconstituted.

To say there was no Middle Guard in 1815 is exactly as accurate as saying there were no 2nd (Dutch) Lancers of the (Middle) Guard in 1815. That unit in 1815 did not exist. There was instead a 'Red' Squadron of the sole regiment of Lancers of the Guard, and like the other squadrons of the 1815 version of the unit, they also were designated Old Guard.

Of course, there was contemporary confusion over this, as noted. Ney, in referring to the units he took forward as Middle Guard, was calling them what they had been called until the previous year.

Of course, there was contemporary confusion over this, as noted. Ney, in referring to the units he took forward as Middle Guard, was calling them what they had been called until the previous year.

That is exactly my point 4th Cuirassier. The two junior regiments of the Guard infantry in both divisions in 1815 may have been designated as Old Guard but in the common understanding of the army (including the two senior Guard Infantry regiments of both divisions) they were understood to be Middle Guard. And in wargaming terms the 3rd and 4th Grenadier/Chasseur Regiments are defacto Middle Guard.

As an aside, I think it is a bit of slight of hand to suggest that there was no Middle Guard at Waterloo. Only the two senior regiments of the Grenadiers and Chasseurs were considered true Old Guard. The fact that the 3rd and 4th Grenadier and Chasseur Regiments were placed in the same division with the 1st and 2nd doesn't mean that they were considered Old Guard in the sense that we commonly use today. The two later regiments in both divisions conform to what I think most of us would consider to be the Middle Guard of past times.

The decrees that created the four regiments designated them as Old Guard.

The Middle Guard infantry regiments, the Fusiliers-Grenadiers and the Fusilier-Chasseurs were not reorganized and reraised during the 100 Days.

There was instead a 'Red' Squadron of the sole regiment of Lancers of the Guard, and like the other squadrons of the 1815 version of the unit, they also were designated Old Guard.

The Guard Lancer Regiment, as there was only one in 1815, mostly uniformed as the old 2d Regiment had been except for its 1st Squadron which was made up of Poles from the old 1st Lancer Regiment. That squadron had accompanied Napoleon to Elba and returned to France with him.

It isn't merely recent books. The French infantry attacked in skirmish swarms supported by close range artillery fire after the failure of the cavalry attacks. This is talked about in Siborne's history. The French artillery fire was demolishing allied squares at point-blank range and cavalry was also present to keep the allied infantry formed in squares.

An oddity of most accounts of this phase of the battle is that they usually describe the French overrunning the allied line with impunity and then suddenly losing.

But it is clear from the account link that although the French did do lots of damage with fire from skirmishers and from a few artillery pieces brought up, it is equally clear that the French formed attack was decisively defeated by the very infantry that had been under this fire. The French skirmishers seemed to fire with superiority (although certainly not impunity) only so far as they could use the cover and the Allied infantry had to remain in close order. So I merely question the use of impunity with the idea of overrunning.

Are you being intentionally pedantic Brechtel? Obviously the four regiments were designated Old Guard. Part of the inflation tendency of the 1815 regime. But in practice, the army distinguished between the 3rd and 4th regiments and 1st and 2nd. So it would be totally appropriate for someone to call the two junior regiments "Middle Guard". Even David Chandler does this.

I think it is appropriate to call them Old Guard as that is what they were designated. As wargamers, we may have a view as to effectiveness, but from what I see and read, they were intended to be grenadiers and chasseurs, not fusilier-grenadiers etc. The army may have thought of tehm as junior regiments, but that doesn't make it wrong to correctly refer to them as part of the Old Guard. And simpler too.

So I don't think Brechtel is being awkward here, just stating a "fact"

I think he is over pedantic – dites moyen garde, you can find this even in contemporary documents, clearly some wanted to make a distinction between the real traditional Old Guard and the newbies – created from nowhere.
Marcus Brutus explained this already very well.

Are you being intentionally pedantic Brechtel? Obviously the four regiments were designated Old Guard. Part of the inflation tendency of the 1815 regime. But in practice, the army distinguished between the 3rd and 4th regiments and 1st and 2nd. So it would be totally appropriate for someone to call the two junior regiments "Middle Guard". Even David Chandler does this.

Chandler is wrong. And it isn't pedantic to call them what they were designated.

And in wargaming terms the 3rd and 4th Grenadier/Chasseur Regiments are defacto Middle Guard. I know LFS rate them lower. There may be a quality distinction between the 1/1 and the 1/4 Grenadiers but I don't see how one could ever prove that.

some wanted to make a distinction between the real traditional Old Guard and the newbies – created from nowhere.

When the some included Davout and Napoleon I think we should pay attention. And there weren't any newbies in the Old Guard of 1815.

it isn't pedantic to call them what they were designated.

Agree. As a character in Brideshead Revisited remarks, why do you get called pedantic when you're simply trying to be precise?

@ Kevin

Do you have the 3-volume Houssaye on 1815? I am trying to work out which volume has the casualties (well, the head count at the 22 June muster) in it – is it Tome 2 or Tome 3?

Pistol range would have been under fifty yards.

From what I've read it would have been under fifty inches :-) – more seriously, Elting reckons French cuirasses were originally supposed to proved against pistol bullets at thirty yards. I am reminded of that quote about one's being very unlucky to be hit at 200 yards by a musket that had actually been aimed at you.

4th Cuirassier:

I know that contemporaries used 'musket range' and 'pistol range' with specific distances in mind. They both appear to be far more liberal ranges than we would give them.

When the some included Davout and Napoleon I think we should pay attention. And there weren't any newbies in the Old Guard of 1815.

Administratively yes, but practically no. Napoleon certainly knew the difference and it is no coincidence that when the Guard advanced at Waterloo it did so with the junior regiments. The two senior regiments of the Old Guard in both divisions, the true Old Guard, were held back.

By "newbies" I believe von Wintefeldt was referring to the regiments (3rd and 4th which were newly raised) not the soldiers within them.

As an aside, if you go on the net the French Guard infantry in their struggle with the British Guard at Waterloo are commonly referred to as the Middle Guard.

In one article on the Imperial Guard states the following,

"The 3e and 4e Grenadiers, and 3e and 4e Chasseurs were filled up with men with only 4 years' service. These units were established only after Napoleon's return from Elba, when men were transferred from the army to form the new Guard regiments. The entire army called them Middle Guard although officially there was no Middle Guard. The bureaucrats in Ministry of War called them Old Guard."

On page 157 of Chandler's Waterloo: The Hundred Days he states in referring to the attack of the Guard at Waterloo "eight [battalions] belonging to the Middle Guard" and the relevant maps depict the deployment of the Middle Guard. In A.F. Becke's book, Napoleon and Waterloo he makes reference to the Middle Guard on page 221. Both these authors must have known that the administratively the 3/4 Regiments of Grenadiers and Chasseurs were part of the Old Guard since they wrote extensively on the battle and were familiar with primary sources.

G'Day Marcus…

You are right…There were those then and today that think like you…that the 3e and 4e garde were la moyenne garde.

But…

'The entire army called them Middle Guard although officially there was no Middle Guard"

I have never read anything that remotely agrees to that statement…

"…the common understanding of the army (including the two senior Guard Infantry regiments of both divisions) they were understood to be Middle Guard. And in wargaming terms the 3rd and 4th Grenadier/Chasseur Regiments are defacto Middle Guard."

May I ask who thought this in the Garde…?

I know that Sergant Mauduit, 2e bataillon du 1er grenadiers in his report never considered them middle guard…

(update – just read Phil's posting on Mauduit…so I shall have to go back and read his account again…but in anycase I shall accept Pelet has final say on the matter)

Then of course you have Pelet when asked the same question:

"La formation ancienne ne comportait que quatre régiments, deux de grenadiers et deux de chasseurs; elle fut portée à huit, par l'adjonction de troisièmes et quatrièmes numéros à chaque arme. C'étaient, dans les nouveaux régiments, dits improprement de moyenne Garde, tous officiers et soldats ayant déjà servi, les officiers supérieurs sortant exclusivement de la Garde; toutefois, ils n'avaient pas la tradition, pas même le costume, et n'avaient, notamment, pas reçu le bonnet à poil. (Note du commandant Duuring, insérée plus loin, le général Pelet, Memoires)"

Best Regards
Art

"C'étaient, dans les nouveaux régiments, dits improprement de moyenne Garde"

Exactly – this is was Marcus Brutus and myself are about – to say la Moyen Garde did not exist – is maybe right on paper but not in the minds of the contemporaries.

G'Day Hans-Karl

I agree that there were those who did not consider them old guard…that is a fact…

But not everyone thought that…and that is a fact…

the Key in this…from my point of view is:

"pas la tradition"

In the military circle…even today…you have to be proven to be accepted…

Best Regards
Art

Well, phlogiston existed in the minds of the contemporaries, but that doesn't mean it actually did.

And Hanoverians wore soft caps in most peoples minds it seems, but in reality…

Myth making in progress.

Time for me to say farewell – this thread has gone beyond useful, so good luck gentlemen.

G'Day Gents

I could be dreaming…

But I once recall that one particular French line regiment in 1815 had a large quantity of prior guard in it…

Does anyone ever recall reading something like that…or am I just making it up…getting old I suppose ;-)

Best Regards
Art

The two senior regiments of the Old Guard in both divisions, the true Old Guard, were held back.

No.

Pelet took two battalions from the senior regiments in the counterattack that retook Plancenoit from the Prussians. The battalions committed to that attack were the 1st Battalion of the 2d Chasseurs and the 2d Battalion of the 2d Grenadiers.

"The 3e and 4e Grenadiers, and 3e and 4e Chasseurs were filled up with men with only 4 years' service."
Only four years. That would include the 1812 campaign, 1813 spring and fall and 1814, or four years in Spain. Doesn't sound too shabby to me.

A propos of nothing very much, it is my understanding that entry to the Guard required a spotless record, a number of years' service – and a minimum height.

It is commonly said that having a Guard at all diluted the quality of the line units the men came from. But unless the height requirement was set so low that everyone met it – which would make it no requirement at all – this cannot be true. Otherwise valuable soldiers too short to make the Guard would have stayed in a line unit and maintained its quality. The Guard presumably thought its fierce appearance worth maintaining, so surely this filter – unnecessary except to the appearance of the unit – had a benign effect of keeping most men of Guard quality in the line?

Had the Guard not been fixated on height then it could instead have ruled that entrants had to have ginger hair, to much the same result. Well, enemies would obviously have pointed and laughed at them rather than run from them, but in terms of recruit quality they'd have been much the same.

The two senior regiments of the Old Guard in both divisions, the true Old Guard, were held back.

No.

Pelet took two battalions from the senior regiments in the counterattack that retook Plancenoit from the Prussians. The battalions committed to that attack were the 1st Battalion of the 2d Chasseurs and the 2d Battalion of the 2d Grenadiers.

I was referring to the moment when the final Guard attack occurred against the main British line around 7:30 pm. By that time the two battalions in question had been relieved by the Young Guard and were redeployed back with the rest of the senior guard battalions.

I was referring to the moment when the final Guard attack occurred against the main British line around 7:30 pm. By that time the two battalions in question had been relieved by the Young Guard and were redeployed back with the rest of the senior guard battalions.

No, they had not been. They stayed in Plancenoit to the end of the battle with the Young Guard, who had counterattacked with them. They eventually had to break out of Plancenoit when the Prussians finally took it. They went south when they broke out. Pelet left an account of the action. It is worthwhile to read.

4th Cuirassier,

I have Houssaye on 1815. I'll have a look and get back to you.

G'Day Phil

Decret du 8 avril 1815:

ART 46.

O In the first regimens of grenadiers and chasseurs a pied…12 years service…with campaigns

O In the second regimens of grenadiers and chasseurs a pied…8 years service…with campaigns

O In the third and fourth regimens of grenadiers and chassuers a pied…4 years service and campaigns

Height requirement for grenadiers – 5 pieds 5 pouces

Height requirement for chassuers – 5 pieds 3 pouces

ART 48.

For the premiers regimens, recruits come from the 2e regimens. They are presented to the Colonel du Corps and examined.

ART 50.

For the chasseurs and grenadiers a pied of the 2e regimens, recruits come from l'infanterie de ligne or men chosen from the 3e and 4e garde regimens.

ART 51.

The 3e et 4e regimens de vieille garde, recruits come from l'infanterie de ligne or men chosen from the regimens de voltigeurs et tirailleurs.

ART 54.

Each line and light regiment, the colonel will designate 2 officers, 30 sous-officers and soldats for the possible acceptance in the 2e, 3e, et 4e vieille garde. They will be examined by the general commandant la division militaire.
Another list is then made up and sent to the ministre de la guerre…

ART 60.

Les soldats which have been found with a spot on their record for bad conduct or discipline problems are forbidden to enter la vieill garde.

ART 80.

The premiers regimens d'infanterie de la vieille gard, are composed of men who were assigned to the regimens prior to 1er avril 1814

The second regimens are composed of men that were in the second regimens, and the 3e and 4e were men from the regimens fusiliers and conformed to articles 53 and 54.

ART 84.

Les compagnies de la vieille garde that were on Elbe…go straight to the 1er regimens, and become the 1er et 2e compagnies de 1er bataillon.

Best Regards
Art

G'Day Phil

In regards to:

"…it is my understanding that entry to the Guard required a spotless record…"

Of course this is found in ART 60. -Les soldats which have been found with a spot on their record for bad conduct or discipline problems are forbidden to enter la vieill garde.

Now let me tell you from experience what this really means ;-)

The first few times that there was a call up…commanders sent them soldats that met the required standards…but I wager…they sent them the bad apples…the trash…those they did not want…why…we even do it today ;-)

Really cant blame the commanders…I gave my share of rotten apples away as well…when it was required to give up personnel ;-)

Best Regards
Art