"French voltigeurs vs Allied jagers " Topic

Were there any physical differences between the French voltigeurs and Allied (Rus,Aus,Prus) jagers ?

Were all of the same height ?
All shorties ?

Someone double check me, but my understanding was that voltigeurs were specified as being too short to qualify for the grenadier companies, at least at the start of the six-company organization. If that's true, since no one else seems to have had a height maximum for light infantry, you'd expect the French to average somewhat shorter, since you've lost the top 16% of the distribution. But it isn't by any means clear that height distributions were the same country by country or year by year.

All you have to do is find out the mean and median height of soldiers in all four armies at some particular year of the Napoleonic Wars--or, better, plot distribution curves of heights for each army each year--and convince yourself this is a meaningful number given the size of the castings, variance between manufacturers, and scale creep.

But given no one was using clones, I'm sure they weren't all the same height.

I think I'd let it go. But I'm like that.

For Russians, no selection for height. Nor riding double on horseback (did that happen often with French voltiguers?).

However, the roots of the Russian Jäger corps were regional populations of
--- "forest" people (Baltic and Finland regions) [regiments number 1-8, 10, 20]
--- the southern militarized border regions of the Ukraine and the Caucasus [regiments number 9, 12-15
--- the Caucasus [regiments 16 and 17]
--- Siberia [regiments 18 and 19]
This regional selection for regiments 1-20 declined from 1800 to 1810, by which time it had essentially disappeared for regular Army recruiting.

--- Regiments 21-32 were raised in 1805-1806, with varying amounts of cadres from existing Jäger and Musketeer regiments.
--- Regiments 33-46 were converted from Musketeer regiments in 1810.
--- Regiments 47-50 were raised in 1811, with varying amounts of cadres from existing Garrison and Musketeer regiments.
--- Regiments 51-57 were raised in 1813, mostly from recruits, and were not deemed ready for service in time to see action against the French

Several temporary, war-time or militia formations returned to the notion of ethnic/regional recruitment:
--- Vologda, Olonets and Vyatka Militia cohorts : raised from foresters and hunters in the far north
--- Grand Dutchess Catherine's Jäger battalion : volunteers from game keepers and forrester on her woodland properties northest of Tver
--- Courland and Llivonia Marksmen regiments : hunters and forresters from the Baltic forests
--- 3 Finnish Jäger regiments : ethnic Swedes and Finns recruited from Vyborg north into modern Finland, many with former light infantry service
--- Russo-German Legion Jäger company : formerly the 3rd company of the East Prussian Jäger Battalion

For the Guard ….
--- Life-Guard Jäger regiment : initially a battalion formed from the jäger detachments in the guard heavy infantry regiments and the Gatchina demonstration jäger company
--- Life-Guard Finland regiment : initially a militia battalion formed from volunteers from the Emperor's forest and woodland properties

The creation of the voltigeur companies in the French line and light infantry battalions predated the reorganization of the French infantry in 1808.

The light infantry got their voltigeur companies in March 1804 and the line infantry followed in September 1805. The enlisted men could be no taller than 4 feet 11 inches (French measurement) and the officers no taller than five feet (French).

They were to be trained to shoot accurately and rapidly and the companies, like those of the grenadiers and carabiniers, to be kept constantly at war strength. The 3d company in every infantry battalion, line or light, was designated the voltigeur company.

The voltigeur companies had 3 officers and 120 enlisted men and after the 1808 reorganization had three officers, five NCOs, eight corporals, one fourier, two drummers or hornists, and 121 privates.

I should not have spoken before experts, but there you go, Osage. 4'11" French was--I'm thinking 5'1" English or thereabouts, but check.

It's going to be a truncated distribution curve, of course, so you'll need to compare it with a full distribution curve for at least one Russian Jaeger regiment from each population base, and then all you'll need are comparable figures for Tyrolean jaegers.

This will serve as a warm-up for the more complicated Prussian problem, because the height distribution for the 1813 jaegers can be expected to be different from the 1806, and neither will apply to the Freiwilliger jaegers, who came from wealthier families and can be assumed to be better nourished.

Good luck!

My understanding is that Austrian Jagers, at least around 1805-1809 were drawn from occupations such as gamekeepers, hunters and others whose civilian work made them adept at handling weapons and also good shots. Therefore physically they would be of all sizes because selection was on the basis of occupations that themselves were not height dependent. French troops were often conscripted from the general population and assigned roles. The assignment of roles was partially according to height. The shorter ones went to the line infantry, and shorter men of these were favoured as voltigeurs, so yes the Austrian Jager would on average probably have been taller. At my 10mm scale however, I doubt whether the height difference would be discernible

The French foot was three-quarters of an inch longer than the English foot.

For Russia ….

Average height 1812 soldiers : 164.7 cm (2 arshina 5 versha) = 5 feet 5 inches English measure
This would apply to Jäger and Musketeers/Infantry equally, I would think.

Minimum height for army recruits 1812 : 157.8 cm (2 arshina 3.5 versha) = 5 feet 2 inches English measure
Minimum height for navy recruits 1812 : 155.6 (2 arshina 3 versha) = 5 feet 1 inch English measure
Measurement (by a doctor) was taken barefoot, not in shoes.
Recruits under 160 cm (2 arshina 4 versha) = 5 feet 3 inches English measure were to be 18 or 19 years old and considered not yet full grown. This was a relaxation of standards in 1811 that had previously required height of 2 arshina 4 versha and 20 years of age.

So, if Brechtel is correct, the entire corps of French voltiguers would have rejected for Russian army service as too small.

Traditionally, the minimum height to be selected a grenadier was 168.9 cm (2 arshina 6 versha) = 5 feet 6-1/2 inches English measure.
However, with the creation of the strelki platoons in 1810, the instruction was that the selection for grenadier should not be with regard to height, but just the "best soldiers". The larger selectees would go to the grenadier platoons and the smaller to the strelki platoons.

link

==================

For British ….

Regulations for recruits in 1802 :
Minimum 5 feet 6 inches English measure for age 20 and older, minimum 5 feet 5 inches English measure for age 17-19.
These were later reduced/relaxed 1 inch to insure sufficient numbers of inductees.

warof1812.ca/recruit.htm

French pouce (inch, or literally "thumb") = 2.707 cm = 1.066 English inches

French pied (foot) = 12 French pouces = 32.484 cm = 12.792 English inches
English foot = 12 English inches = 30.480 cm = 11.257 French pouces

Nice link--thanks, Breton!

So, if Brechtel is correct, the entire corps of French voltiguers would have rejected for Russian army service as too small.

It should also be noted that the French light infantry, including the voltigeurs, were superior to Russians, Austrians, and Prussians, in light infantry operations.

Further, the kleine manner, as they were dubbed in German, were efficient as light infantry. Good soldiers can be tall or short, it doesn't matter. And being too short for the Russian service is not prohibitive for other nations. And the French voltigeurs certainly earned an excellent reputation for efficiency as light infantry through the wars.

That isn't applicable to the Russian light infantry as a whole.

Perhaps for a separate topic but…I thought this would be more about quality than physical size. I have always wondered about the skirmishing prowess of the various continental armies during the Napoleonic era. It seems the French started off with the concept of specialized light infantry units but over time it sounds like there was not a lot of difference between the light and line regiments in that all could detach skirmishers and all could deploy in open order.

My understanding is that at the beginning of the period the French had integral light companies while the continental powers had separate Jaeger units. Another difference was that the French used skirmishers in an offensive manner while the continental armies used their light units in more of a defensive manner occupying forests or other disruptive terrain. If I am mistaken in my beliefs please let me know. It seems that as far as quality goes the Voltigeurs may have had a slight advantage as individual initiative was favored and encouraged. The fact that the Austrians had Grenzer units and failed to utilize them in their correct role I think emphasizes this point. I would be open to any opinion that they should be on par.

To this same point when the continental powers realized that the few specialized Jaeger units they possessed could not match the numbers of skirmishers put forward by every battalion of the French they too started to include light companies in each of their battalions or as the Austrians did just have the third ranks available to deploy as a skirmish screen, but still in a defensive manner to protect the main unit from the pesky French light companies. Perhaps when I say "Continental" I should clarify to say excluding the British. Still in this manner the French would still seem to be superior due to the offensive nature in which they were used.

I ask all of this in regards to wargaming as unit value and morale has to be quantified so that most of us can roll dice and determine outcomes. Perhaps I will start a new topic asking about the skirmishing capabilities of each Nation as the era progressed unless someone can provide a link where the subject has already been covered on TMP.

Brechtel,

No one made any comment against the French. Or against shorter soldiers. Your post is Off Topic, and tends toward being argumentative : you have stated your opinion as if it were in some way an established fact.

The topic of the thread is the comparitive regulations of different nations concerning physical differences (such as height), with regard to light infantry soldiers.

Maybe start another thread with your opinions about the French being "superior"?

I like and respect Mr Brechtel, but here I agree with Mr Breton.

>"The topic of the thread is the comparitive regulations of different nations concerning physical differences (such as height) ….
Maybe start another thread with your opinions about the French being "superior"?"

@davbenbak – there has been loads over the years – try these:

(this one was epic) TMP link

TMP link

TMP link

TMP link

TMP link

TMP link

TMP link

TMP link

TMP link

TMP link

TMP link

TMP link

TMP link

TMP link

TMP link

TMP link

TMP link

TMP link

TMP link

TMP link

I fear that the idea that the French were superior as light infantry is received myth. In Northern Italy, Suvarov's skirmishers gave the French fits – and they weren't trained jagers, just whatever battalion Suvarov happened to grab and put out in front.

The only advantage that the French lights had was numeric, and that didn't last through the period. By 1813, a larger portion of the Prussian army was light infantry than the French.

Perhaps you could cite and/or list a source?

No one made any comment against the French. Or against shorter soldiers. Your post is Off Topic, and tends toward being argumentative : you have stated your opinion as if it were in some way an established fact.

You are incorrect.

You stated:

So, if Brechtel is correct, the entire corps of French voltiguers would have rejected for Russian army service as too small.

That is not a compliment and can be construed as pejorative.

You also stated, incorrectly, that:

The topic of the thread is the comparitive regulations of different nations concerning physical differences (such as height), with regard to light infantry soldiers.

The title to the thread is:

French Voltigeurs vs Allied Jagers.

And the opening posting is, in part:

Were there any physical differences between the French voltigeurs and Allied (Rus,Aus,Prus) jagers ?

‘Comparative regulations' are not mentioned. You brought that up in your incorrect posting criticizing what I posted. Perhaps if you just stick to the topic and stop the ridiculous criticisms, the discussions might be better.
And if you don't believe that I am correct, then post something that proves your ‘opinions' instead of making personal remarks and incorrect criticisms.

If you would like to discuss the different regulations, that might be a good idea. Why don't you start a thread on that topic?

Brechtel,
I am not the subject of this thread either.
Your post, not counting quotes, was 117 words long
You used the words you/your 10 times (8.5%) of those 117 words.
Why ???

Le Breton, I like your irony: in your message above of 34 words, you used the word you/your 4 times. This is a percentage of 8,5% as well ;-)

Generally, I think discussions of the character or judgement of the people contributing here are fruitless. I for my part hardly ever read them. In the "perfect forum" (for me), everybody will stick to the topic, bring only facts and details, and refrain from generalisations. The truth (a lie people can agree on) is in the detail, not in the abstract.

I don't believe it is (or could possibly be) universally or generally true that the French were superior to the Austrians, Russians and Prussians in light infantry operations. Equally it isn't and could not be universally or generally true that the Austrians, Russians and Prussians were superior to the French. It just does not work this way- there are far too many variables of time, place and circumstance in a set of conflicts like the French revolutionary and Napoleonic wars for .

The French certainly had a very strong tradition of light infantry operations. Or arguably they had at least three complementary traditions which influenced each other. The first dates back to the WAS with Grassins, Chasseurs de Fischer etc of independent free company type units mostly fighting the petite guerre of outposts etc, but able in the right terrain to influence set battles (eg Fontenoy).
The second is of sub-units from regular units trained and able to operate independently or as part of the main unit as circumstances required. This really has its origins in the SYW 'Piquet' companies, and evolved slowly by such forward thinking as was allowed in the late Royal army. This is probably the tradition closest to the classic 'voltiguer company model'.
The third tradition is more clearly from the early part of the revolutionary wars, of whole units (commonly of the 'volunteer' type) which were not really trained for or enthusiastic about sustained manoeuvre in close formation. These often operated, at least in the attack, as unformed swarms, clouds, 'grandes bandes' or whatever we choose to call them. This proved very effective on several occasions in 1793-4 but was a risky business if the enemy had good cavalry around. With training, experience and the general tightening up of procedures as the revolutionary period wore on, this mode of operation fell out of favour somewhat, but by the time of the height of the Empire, some Line Infantry units were so competent and confident that all companies were capable of acting effectively in close or dispersed formation or of being detached some distance from their parent as required- so effectively representing all three traditions.

But this nirvana-like state of universal infantry competence was a very impressive achievement but was really only applicable to a relatively small part of the army (the name Davout often crops up here), for a relatively few years. At various times and places, the light infantry situation could be much more equal or even in the allies' favour. Veteran Jager units vs 1813-14 Marie Louise Voltiguers would be quite an unequal contest, but there are examples from 1806,1807 and 1809 that could be pointed to also.

I could go on about the somewhat different traditions of strelki and schutzen in Russian and Germanic armies and how they played out- but I'm getting boring.

Sorry this is such a long post, but in my view our understanding is rarely advanced by making broad unqualified assertions. Many of us including myself do it from time to time- but we shouldn't.

Oliver,
Yes, 8.5%! I am so glad someone noticed.
:-)
We have the same idea of a "perfect forum". Maybe Markus Stein's is closest, or maybe I am missing some of the "imperfections" due to my imperfect German.

============

Seneffe,
"understanding is rarely advanced by making broad unqualified assertions."
I agree – with this part especially, and with all the rest of your post.

Just a few comments. The new conscripts of 1814 were dubbed 'Marie-Louise's', not those of 1814.

Regarding fighting in open order, the French did a few things differently than the other armies.

First, fighting in open order was used as an offensive weapon in conjunction with troops in formation, not merely a defensive one.

Second, The other armies promulgated regulations for skirmishing and then practiced it; the French practiced it, institutionalized it, and used both line and light infantry for skirmishing, deploying entire battalions and sometimes whole regiments in that role as late as 1813 and also at Waterloo.

Third, sometimes French commanders would form their first line in a heavy skirmish line instead of the regulation three-rank line.

Fourth, the 1791 Reglement did not cover the use of skirmishers on the battlefield in either an offensive or defensive role.

Regarding fighting in open order, the French did a few things differently than the other armies.

First, fighting in open order was used as an offensive weapon in conjunction with troops in formation, not merely a defensive one.

Those things were done by the Allies from the beginning. Coberg in 1794 was using the 3rd rank of Austrian line to attack the French in Holland. Duhesume in his work on light infantry describes the Austrians using light infantry offensively in conjunction with formed troops during the same period. He commented that the Austrians were better at such maneuvers than the French at that time. We can debate how often the Allies did this well or poorly, when and with how many troops, but the Allies, from the British to the Russians did use skirmishers offensively, from 1794 till 1815. For instance, Steven Ross in his From Flinklock to Rifle provides many examples in his chapter on "Napoleon's Enemies."

Second, The other armies promulgated regulations for skirmishing and then practiced it; the French practiced it, institutionalized it, and used both line and light infantry for skirmishing, deploying entire battalions and sometimes whole regiments in that role as late as 1813 and also at Waterloo.

Again the Allies did too and again Steven Ross, among many others, provides many examples such as all three battalions of the Pavlosky grenadier regiment fighting all day as skirmishers in woods on the Russian right wing at Bautzen. , General Radesky reported deploying entire battalions of line infantry as skirmishers during the 109 war. His report is detailed in the Austrian Krieg 1809.

No doubt the French generally were willing to use more skirmishers and generally had more experienced in using those methods, but those two points were not unique to the French at any time during the Napoleonic Wars.