"KGL Light at Waterloo - rifles/muskets?" Topic

Can anyone confirm which KGL Light used rifles and which used muskets?

I see there are figures for both by Perrys and Brigade.

Somewhere or other I came across an arms return for the 2nd (I think) KGL Light Bn, post Waterloo. It showed a mix of rifles and muskets, but more rifles than muskets in a ratio of about 2:1 or more. Early in the existence of the light battalions, apparently only a couple of companies each were rifle-armed.

This is from a posting on the Napoleon Series discussing this in 2005. The posting is by Michael Tänzer, who runs the KGL German website, and is probably the leading expert on this matter.

-------------------------------------------
The collections under Hann. 38 D in the "Niedersächsisches Hauptstaatsarchiv Hannover" (HStA) are the original KGL papers. Nr. 180 contains several returns of clothing, equipment and weapons which were given over to the Royal Hannoverian Army on the disbandment of the KGL in 1816. These are the returns with dates nearest to Waterloo I could find in the HStA.

Page 8 is the "Return of Arms of the 2nd Light Battn. Kings German Legion at Steierberg the 5th February 1816" written in English and signed "Geo Baring, Lt Colonel". The return is in the form of a table with the columns "Rifles" and "Musquets" and the following information:

"In possession with the Battn. [last 4 words underlined]
belonging Originally to the Battn. | 228 | 67
received from the 3rd Line Battn. | | 26
received from the 5th Line Battn. | | 4
Total | 228 | 97

In Store at Ostend [last 3 words underlined]
belonging Orginally to the Battn. | | 85
received from the 3rd Line Battn. | | 28
received from the 5th Line Battn. | | 24
Total | | 137

In possession of Men Sick absent and on Command | 12 | 14

Gran Total | 240 | 248

Recapitulation [underlined]
belonging Originally to the Battn. | 240 | 166
1st Decbr 1815 received from the 3rd Line Battn. | | 54
2nd Do. 1815 received from the 5th Line Battn. | | 28
Total | 240 | 248"

HStA Hann. 38 D, Nr. 179, Pag. 3 is a report from the 1st Light Battalion KGL in German, dated 14 February 1816. It gives the result of a committe meeting inspecting all firearms returned from the companies and is signed by the president of the committe Captain Schaedtler. The report lists 300 rifles ["Büchsen mit Hirschfänger"] as serviceable, 20 rifles needing repairs and 25 rifles unserviceable; no muskets are mentioned.

HStA Hann. 38 D, Nr. 180 has also reports from the line battalions of the KGL in English:
Pag. 11: 1st Line Battalion, 1 February 1816, 65 rifles, 469 muskets
Pag. 16: 2nd Line Battalion, 13 February 1816, 84 rifles, 401 muskets

The report of the 5th Line Battalion is in German and signed on 27 January 1816 by Captain Georg Nölting of Wheatley fame:
Pag. 25: 49 rifles ["Büchsen"], 234 muskets ["Gewehre" !!!]
Pag. 28 is a report on the accoutrements in possession of the 5th Line Battalion and signed on 9 February 1816 by Lt.-Col. von Linsingen. The table is divided in several main columns: "Serjeanten", "Tambourn", "Pioniers", "Schützen" [riflemen], "Soldaten". The undercolumns under "Schützen" give "Koppel" [waistbelts] and "Pulverhörner" [powderhorns] for 50 men, clearly indicating that these were really riflemen.

All these numbers, compared with the strength of the battalions at Waterloo, clearly show that the light companies of the line battalions were riflemen, at least at Waterloo. A large proportion of the 2nd Light Battalion men was armed with muskets, whereas the men of the 1st Light Battalion seem to have been all riflemen.

The 1813 drill instructions were not used by KGL light infantry but written by KGL officers for the use of the newly formed Hannoverian Levies, the later field battalions, because of the lack of any standardised drill instructions in 1813. The title is misleading! In the HStA are many propositions for altering the pre 1803 Hannoverian drill to fit into the British drill system. Unfortunately the end product, of which some handwritten adjutant's versions may be found in the HStA, was never printed. The 1802 Hannoverian drill had a large part on the exercises of the sharpshooters which was incorporated in the KGL drill. The new Hannoverian formations of 1813, however, had no use for this. The weapons for them were sent from England and in HStA Hann. 38 D, Nr. 182, Pag. 8 is an "Account of Small Arms and Accoutrements received and issued by Dpy. Asst. Commissy. Taylor in and for the Service of Hanover" dated 8 October 1814 and countersigned by Lt.-Gen. Baron Decken. All weapons received from 6 September 1813 until 23 July 1814 were "Muskets with Bayonets". These were distributed to the Hannoverian battalions including the Lüneburg FB! Memoirs of officers from the so called light battalions never mention rifles but always bayonets, not "Hirschfänger".

All battalions of the Hannoverian Army were re-equipped (partly changing their uniforms) before the Waterloo campaign. It is possible that their sharpshooters received rifles at that point. According to the memoirs of Lieutenant and Adjutant Carl von Berckefeldt, Landwehrbataillon Münden, his battalion used the pre 1803 Hannoverian regulations and so had sharpshooters, but all men were equipped with the British musket. The "sharpshooters" of the Hannoverian units at Waterloo seem to have been the equivalent of the British light companies. The only exception was the Jäger Corps, which of course was armed with (hunting) rifles.
--------------------------

Rod

The shame is that, if we accept, and that is the evidence, that 2nd Light KGL did not depend totally on rifles, what price now the argument that the ammo was not available to resupply the garrison of LHS….the story of the upset ammo cart lost on the road from Waterloo to Mt St Jean?

Fantastic stuff, Rod! Many thanks!

Deadhead,

The story of the overturned ammunition cart is probably a myth.

The best account of the problem is by Sir Richard Henagan, who was in command of Wellington's Field Train, responsible for ammunition resupply, both to the artillery and infantry.

In his memoirs (Seven Years Campigning) he says that the problem was that the expenditure of rifle ammunition by the three battalions of the 95th Rifles was much higher than anticipated, so when 2nd KGL Light asked for more, there was no more to give. I presume that the reason that the three battalions of 95th Rifles used so much ammunition was that they spent most of the battle firing in volleys, and not skirmishing.

I have the full quote by Henagan somewhere and will look for it.

Rod

Now that I had never heard before. How interesting. Would love to see that quote if you can track it down.

I can see the point, that bizarrely, the 95th battalions were used more as line than light infantry…as with most Adam's Brigade of course……and would have blazed away rather than picking their targets.

So many stories about LHS lacking resupply. Not asking for it, no access via the north side, cut off, not stocking up beforehand as any sensible commander would have done, the cart story etc etc……but none of it makes sense

I suspect others will argue that regiments were very much responsible for…and possessive of….their own ammo resupply.

Rod,

Great post, as always!

The actual words Henegan used (p321-322 of Volume 2 of his memoirs) were:

"Fresh supplies of ammunition had been issued by the Field Train throughout the entire line, at different periods of the battle, which responsible branch of the service was conducted by the Author of this work. Some regiments expended more than others, and particularly the three battalions of the old 95th; whose calibres differed from the other regiments of the line, and were the same as those of the 2nd Light Battalion of the Germans. Towards the close of the day, the last round of this species of ammunition had been issued."

His memoirs are available as free Google downloads:

Volume 1:

link

Volume 2:

link

Volume 1 also contains an interesting section on the role of the Field Train (p8-10).

Rod

I guess no other allied infantry unit (bar perhaps some in Hougoumont) had to fight as fiercely and relentlessly as the La Haye Sainte defenders. It's not surprising they ran out of ammo, especially if they could only realistically borrow from 95th 1st Battalion, who would themselves have been heavily engaged.

The official system was that they should not have needed to borrow. It as the responsibility of the Field Train to ensure that they were fully provisioned before the battle (assuming that the unit submitted a return showing its ammunition state). If they were running low during the battle, then they needed to communicate that to the Field Train, who were then responsible for forward supply to them. However that assumes that there were still stocks of rifle ammunition in the Field Train wagons, and Henegan says that they ran out of that particular ammunition during the battle.

That system is no different today, although it would be Royal Logistic Corps providing rather than Field Train.

Rod