"French Horse Artillery during the Revolution" Topic

Thanks very much for that information. He's not in Six apparently as Six does not cover 1815 and only goes to 1814.

The information can be found here:

1789-1815.com/dessales.htm

One thing at least about the French horse artillery on which I'm sure we all can agree is that it would have been more effective had it adopted the Desaguliers / Congreve block-trail design sooner.

The British system later became the standard means of moving artillery support about the battlefield in all armies for over 100 years.

The inferior systems in use in other armies were all rapidly forgotten as regrettable and embarrassing misjudgments. The French and Austrian systems were Betamax and VHS, the British was DVD, and for Blu Ray we had to wait for the StuG III.

Just chucking this into what was becoming an unnecessarily acrimonious debate to help calm things down by reminding us all of something we do all agree on.

@Chad47
Returning to the original question, reviewing all the Nafziger OOB's for 1792 to 1800 I would conclude that:
. There is a clear distinction between 'Light artillery' and 'Foot artillery'.
. 'Light artillery' almost exclusively used 8pdrs (when ordnance was homogeneous) or 8pdrs with howitzers (when ordnance was mixed). Very isolated instances of 12pdrs.
. 4pdrs were generally reserved for battalion guns.
. 'Foot artillery' shows no consistency in ordnance.
Looks like Paddy Griffiths looked at the same sources (which shouldn't come as a surprise).
Regards
Allan
P.S. And how are those rules coming along?

It is not just the gun, the French gunners were fed up with the 4 wheeled ammunition waggon, which was slow, it is strange that they did not adopt the limber system like in the British, Bavarian, Prussian army etc.

Horse artillery, foot artillery, and mountain artillery were all 'light' artillery. In the French service, both horse and foot artillery used the same ordnance.

There were essentially two types of artillery in the French service-light artillery which was synonymous with field artillery and heavy artillery. The latter generally referred to siege pieces and mortars. Garrison and fortress artillery generally used the same pieces as heavy artillery.

The French abolished battalion guns in 1798 and when they were revived periodically from 1809-1813, they were organized in regimental cannon companies and were a regimental, not a battalion, asset.

The French caisson and field forge were actually two-wheeled vehicles attached to an artillery limber.

If anyone has ever used Historex models, it is quite evident that was the way the French constructed their ancillary vehicles.

And other armies besides the French employed 'four-wheeled' artillery caissons.

One thing at least about the French horse artillery on which I'm sure we all can agree is that it would have been more effective had it adopted the Desaguliers / Congreve block-trail design sooner.

Maybe, maybe not. As it was the French horse artillery arm was the most efficient of that of any army, including that of the British.

On the French horse artillery arm; from the American Artillerist's Companion, Volume II, pages38-40:

'But no European power has hitherto derived such important advantages from this new artillery as the French. The adoption of it was for a long time proposed in vain; but in 1791 M Duportail, then minister of war, authorized the commanding officer of the division of Metz to form two companies of horse artillery; and finally in the year 1792, it was adopted generally, and soon carried to great perfection. In order to give it the advantage of superior fire, the French flying or horse artillery consists of 8-pounders and 6-inch howitzers; the ammunition is carried in light caissons, and most of the artillerists are on horseback, while others ride the wursts. By this arrangement, in addition to the known abilities of the French cannoneers, the republican horse artillery soon acquired a decided superiority over that of the Austrians, and other powers, which the imperial horse artillery has maintained, and even surpassed, during a series of victories in the glorious wars of 1805 and 1806.'

The one thing that makes me doubt whether cuirasses were worthwhile is that although Napoleon thought they were, he may not have given this level of operational detail the required thought. Maybe he just figured cuirasses must be useful because armour, end of.

In the same way, Napoleon's failure to recognise the inferiority of his artillery system compared to Britain's tends to reinforce this. There were some details he never mastered, and artillery was one, which is really counter-intuitive considering he was an artilleryman. He stuck with Betamax when DVD was out there.

There are inane hipsters who pay double the price of CD for vinyl pressed in eastern Europe that they play on retro record decks with the signal-to-noise ratio of a squeaky door hinge. Because it's somehow more "authentic" to these ar5eclowns. Well, what if Napoleon was a sort of artillery hipster avant la lettre, fumbling about with all the tea ceremony etc of a second or third rate artillery system when a far better one was out there waiting to be adopted, and soon afterwards was?

Sources for your opinions?

Tousard is of no great use regarding reliable information about French artillery, French sources are preferable to discuss this.

Despite what he claims, like that the initial Artillerie volante or légère had small ammunition carriages, I ask myself, from where did they come from, certainly not Gribeauval?

And no, the Gribeauval system did not have two wheeled limbers including stowage for ammunition as in Prussian, Bavarian or British fashion, nor did they use mules to carry ammunition for the horse artillery, or better Kavalleriegeschütze.

OBSERVATIONS
SUR LES CHANGEMENTS QU'IL PARAITRAIT UTILE D'APPORTER AU MATERIEL ET AU PERSONNEL DE L'ARTILLERIE 1).
Edited and composed by Geert van Uythoven
(…)

Le trait caractéristique de ce système d'artillerie, est, principalement, de transporter séparément, dans des caissons, à la su ite de chaque bouche à feu, les munitions nécessaires à son approvisionnement. Sans son caisson la pièce est nulle et ne peut combattre ( car nous devons compter pour rien quelques coups renfermés dans les coffrets ) : de-là la nécessité de ne jamais s'en séparer et de le traîner partout à sa suite ; et sur un champ de bataille, le nombre de bouches à feu qui combattent entraîne immédiatement, sur le même terrain, au moins un égal nombre de caissons ; par conséquent une double ligne de voitures et de chevaux ; et celles-ci offrent par leur construction le plus d'embarras.

Toutes les artilleries étrangères, au contraire, étant organisées de manière à avoir, sur l'avant-train des bouches à feu, un coffret susceptible de recevoir un approvisionnement assez considérable pour pourvoir à un combat d'une certaine durée 3) ; les caissons de munitions nécessaires pour les compléter et les entretenir restent en réserve hors de portée, ne les gênent en rien dans leurs mouvements, et leur laissent ainsi toute la liberté de manœuvrer et de se porter où il est besoin. Une ligne de pièces seule combat ; tous les mouvements sont simples et faciles ; un moindre nombre d'hommes et de chevaux sont exposés, et les commandants de batteries, n'ayant à s'occuper que de leurs pièces, agissent avec bien plus de confiance et de sécurité. Bien entendu que cette disposition ne peut s'appliquer rigoureusement qu'aux canons de 6 ou de 8 ; l'avant-train des obusiers ou canons de 12 ne peut jamais contenir de munitions assez pour soutenir un feu de longue durée ; il faut nécessairement qu'il y ait à portée un caisson pour deux obusiers et un par pièce de 12.

3) Les avant-trains prussiens de 6, pour l'artillerie à pied, portent soixante-dix coups. Ceux pour l'artillerie à cheval, soixante coups. Pour obusiers de 24, vingt-un coups. Pour 12, vingt-un coups. L'avant-train de 6 hollandais (modèle anglais, ce matériel y étant depuis peu introduit) porte soixante coups. Les avant-trains de 6 anglais portent quarante-deux coups ; d'obusiers, une vingtaine de coups. Les avant-trains des pièces russes et polonaises ne portent qu'une vingtaine de coups, mais leurs caissons à deux roues sont assez mobiles pour suivre les pièces facilement et ne point gêner, car ces deux artilleries manœuvrent avec une extrême rapidité.

Il en résulte que dans ces terribles combats d'artillerie dont les dernières guerres offrent souvent l'exemple, nous combattions avec un nombre à peu près double de voitures et de chevaux pour produire un feu égal ; et que dans les circonstances critiques et difficiles qu'offrent les batailles, soit pour y arriver ou en sortir, l'encombrement énorme de voitures a souvent accru nos dangers et nos pertes ; et il est à remarquer que, sous ce rapport même, nos caissons, si peu maniables, incapables de tourner, prêts à verser dans toutes les irrégularités de terrain, et qu'on ne peut relever sans des travaux qu'on n'a pas toujours le temps d'effectuer, offrent encore bien plus de difficultés que les pièces, et sont un sujet d'inquiétude pour les officiers d'artillerie.

Telle fut, en effet, la funeste issue de plusieurs batailles où l'on fit des pertes énormes d'artillerie 4), par exemple celle de Dennewitz et de la Katzbach ; cette dernière, surtout, s'étant livrée dans un terrain coupé de ravins et de défilés où les communications étaient très-difficiles, tout fut encombré de voitures ; l'artillerie ne put s'en tirer : on perdit cent cinq pièces de canon et plus de trois cents caissons ; au combat de Mockern, lors des journées de Leipzig, soixante-quatre ; à Dennewitz, soixante, etc.

4) A la première journée de Leipzig, du côté seulement du 6e corps, à Mockern, on perdit 64 pièces ; à Kulm, 90.
(…)

Source: Anonymous, "Observations sur les changemens qu'il paraîtrait utile d'apporter au matériel et au personnel de l'artillerie", in ‘Le Spectateur Militaire', Tome troisième (Paris 1827) pp. 129-159.

I recommend to read the whole transcription.

Also Warin wrote an very good article in the Revue d'Artillerie, yes I know another French source, but much superior than the Tousard blurb of the same subject) about the mobility of the French artillery in the French Revoutionar and Boney wars.

and the much ignored – not popping up on the usual reading list

French Artillery of 1824
Paul Dawson and Stephen Summerfield
June 2008

Which is a good discussion of divers French artillery systems, Allix is also highly critical of the clumsy French 4 wheeled Gribeauval carriage.

Boney did want to change all this, he was aware of those problems, but constant warfare and lack of support of some of his artillery generals prevented a long overdue modernization (see the projected artillery material of an 11) to provide French gunners a sate of the art system.

There all those points were raised umpteen times in the past, I see it pointless to repeat them all over again.

In case for French artillery, ignoring French sources will lead to a cul de sac, as well as ignoring Austrian sources about Austrian artillery.

Louis de Tousard (1749-1817) studied at La Fere and was commissioned Lieutenant before resigning in 1777 to travel to America as a "Gentleman Adventurer." During the American War of Independence, he served as ADC to Lafayette before losing his arm at Rhode Island. In 1795, he petitioned Congress for reinstatement becoming Major in the 2nd Artillery Regiment and then Lieutenant-Colonel in 1800 before being forced to retire two years later when he was replaced by Major Jonathan Williams

So in how many actions did Tousard participate in Europe to derive his wisdom, when voicing his opinion about French and other nations' artillery in the French Revolutionary and Boney wars?

Desalle (or de Salle) appears in 'Dictionnaire des Colonels de Napoleon' by Danielle and Bernard Quintin (Paris: Kronos, 2013) as his rank of general de brigade/marechal de camp was not confirmed by either the first or second restoration; hence he did not appear in Six I presume.

G'Day Phil

If I may answer your questions regarding whether Napoleon gave much thought about artillery and cuirassiers:

First I hope you read Hans – Karl's posting, and may I suggest the you read what General Allix has to say about other reasons that made them decided upon the system An XI, and how they were also concerned about the artillerie idioplique, which General Gassendi was all for.

One of the principle reasons the 12 pounder was originally excluded from the system An XI was because it was thought unsuitable for the new tactical system called l'ordre perpendiculaire, and Susane does a good job of explaining the French tactical viewpoint for the preference of the 6 pounder.

As for the 12 pounder, Allix goes on to explains how General Gassendi saved the day and convinced Napoleon to keep the 12 pounder in the system An XI

As for les cuirassiers:

In the Correspondance de Napoleon, it is well documented on his reasons for cuirassiers.

On the 17th of September 1802 Napoleon presented a project to reduce the number of grosse cavalerie to 18 regiments and 2 regiments of carabiniers. He wanted the first 5 regiments to be given the plastron, and the 8e were to keep their plastron. The rest of the cavalry were to be without the plastron.

If napoleon had kept with his original project, the carabinier a cheval would never have been given the plastron.

But Napoleon's concept for the cavalerie changed, and Napoleon had come to the decision that cavalerie now fell into four catigories:

les cuirassiers (heavies)
dragons (demi-legere and auxiliary for les cuirassiers)
cavalerie legere reguliere (hussards, lancers, chasseurs)
cavlerie legere irreguliere / eclaireurs (scouts and Cossacks)

But that would have meant disbanding the oldest regiments of cavalry, "par ordre d'ancienneté sur le tableu", and if Napoleon was to keep only the cuirassiers as his cavalerie lourde, it was necessary that the carabinier a cheval become cuirassiers.

But he didn't want them to lose their historical or their "identity ordre d'ancienneté sur le tableu", He consequently ordered that they changed their uniform and gave the order that they were never to be referred as cuirassiers.

Best Regards
Art

Art!

dragons (demi-legere and auxiliary for les cuirassiers)

"Half-Light" does this help answer the question as to the weight of French dragons?

Allix – indeed

Systeme d'artillerie de campagne du lieutenant-general Allix, compare avec les systemes du comite d'artillerie de France, de Gribeauval, et de l'an XI

link

Regarding the Carabiniers; if Napoleon wrote in 1802 about changing uniform, why took it so long before they did (in 1810)?

…On a diverging course was asked
>>if Napoleon wrote in 1802 about changing uniform, why took it so long before they did (in 1810)?

Refer below…

>>he may not have given this level of operational detail the required thought.

Napoleon didn't think then? Hmm, news to the world at the time…

Tellya what, come back in 8 years and tell us what you woulda/shoulda changed now!

Thread drift again; combining form with function, where the two were not relevant except under the most 'perfect' of conditions.

Yet in his 'Maxim's Napoleon states "whether in the van, the rear or in reserve, the cavalry of the line should be there to support the lights.
SO where now the importance lies?
d

shat

Are you OK…are you alright?

I'm concerned about you..incoherent writing with sudden change of thought…not getting enough sleep or can't sleep?

You have a good day

G'Day Stoppage

la premiere organisation qui se fait pour toutes les troupes a cheva, au 1 janvier 1791, assimila les dragons a la grosse cavalerie

mais a quelques mois de la, un nouveau reglement les consondit avec la cavalerie legere…

La loi du 21 fevrier 1793 sur la constituion general de l'armee, rapprocha de nouveau les dragons de la grosse cavalerie…and it goes on and on…

source: Histoire General des Institutions Militaire de france- pendant la revolution

I think that most wargamers struggle with dragons because of their role as troopers (later the French military would call the dragons; "dragon française" in 1830, which means trooper, and troopers fight only on horseback.

But French military did call the Dragons "bâtards" ;-)

--

BA: I mentioned that the project was presented on the 17th of September 1802 by Napoleon, and it wasn't until Napoleon's concept for the cavalerie changed that he started to implement his plans.

Best Regards
Art

I was kind of kidding there. Napoleon wasn't really a hipster. For one thing he didn't have a stupid beard full of dirt and food residue.

You were saying?

Which one is Napoleon?

The two guys on the left appear to be wearing combover beards across the top of their heads. Props to them for the dedication in achieving that.

Pioneers were clearly hipsters. The axes were made of stone I would think.

These are not pioneers. Veterans from the Crimea were allowed to wear a full beard as a distinction for having endured the gruesome conditions of the winter siege.

Not a distinction as such but the practice was so ingrained by 1856 that the order to keep the chin and throat bare was simply overlooked. The heavy beard then became an item of male fashion, cemented by the events of the Indian Mutiny when the opportunities to shave were few and far between and the beard helped somewhat protect the face from sunburn.

After the Crimea, and the Mutiny too, the beard was of course something of a badge of service, and Horseguards quite sensibly let the matter lie until the mid 1860s when the rules were re-imposed- except for pioneers and for troops on campaign at the discretion of the GOC. By that time the long Dundreary side whiskers or 'Burnsides' were in fashion.

Wasn't Allix's treatise a study of existing French artillery systems and promoting a new artillery system to replace them?

As it was written and/or published in 1827 was it not promoting the new Valee Artillery System which was adopted that year?

Regarding the French line heavy cavalry ca 1800, Napoleon's intention was to rebuild it into an effective arm, which is why he reduced it to 11 regiments from the original 25 and had them armored.

The French heavy cavalry did not have 'plastrons' but their uniforms did have lapels (revers) and the new cuirassier arm had the same as well as uniform coats without lapels with a single row of buttons. Both were worn under the cuirass.

The main reason the carabinier regiments were armored in 1810 was that they had suffered heavy casualties in 1809, especially head wounds. Their bearskins did not have chin scales so they could fall off in the charge and in a melee. Napoleon's first order was to add chin scales to the bearskin and then into a full cuirass. There was a transition period which Rousselot has documented.

The average weights for a French cuirassier was approximately 309 pounds; for a dragoon it was 273 ponds and for a hussar or chasseur a cheval 251 pounds. A horse that was well-cared for could carry up to one-fourth of its own weight.

Interestingly, in some publications, especially period prints by French artists, French dragoons were labeled 'cavalerie legere.'

For all intents and purposes they were many times employed as heavy cavalry as at Eylau in February 1807 where most of the cavalry that participated in Murat's great charge were dragoons. The only cuirassier division was d'Hautpoul's and as the carabiniers were in Nansouty's division, they were not present.

In 1805 Murat's Cavalry Reserve consisted of two divisions of heavy cavalry, four dragoon divisions, one of dismounted dragoons, and one of light cavalry plus eight companies of horse artillery. The rest of the light cavalry was assigned to the numbered corps.

Whatever Napoleon thought, there was still two basic types of cavalry-heavy and light with dragoons being another type of cavalry. And dragoons were equipped as heavy cavalry. In point of fact, the original Grenadiers a Cheval, formed before the Consulate, came from the 3d Dragoon Regiment.

With regard to chinscales (and indeed the Neo-calssical helmets of this period) to what extent can the function of these be deemed to be genuinely protective, as opposed to being essentially ornamental?

Which was the first army to adopt chin-scales for their headgear? Did the provision of these reflect a need proved through experience or simply a function conceived by designers?

Was there something about cavalry engagements in this period which rendered head protection more necessary than, say, fifty years before.

Chinscales would keep the headgear attached to the head. That was the point of Napoleon ordering the bearskins of the carabiniers to have chinscales.

Was there something about cavalry engagements in this period which rendered head protection more necessary than, say, fifty years before.

Taking a punt on this:

* Cavalry engagements – no – same weapons ('cepting lances)
* Musketry – yes – Napoleonic times have more cavalry versus foot interactions (Wellington: Accelerated Infantry)
* Canister shot – yes – transition from lead shot to iron shot means more flying about further.
* Horse artillery – yes – horse artillery now exists everywhere.
* 4pdr/6pdr/8pdr horse artillery – still not too sure!!!

You misunderstand. A simple chin strap might have provided the same function. Moreover, it seems that in the C18th various forms of cavalry cap or helmet did service without any from of chin strap.

4pdr/6pdr/8pdr horse artillery – still not too sure!!!

The French used all three calibers for horse artillery-but they did prefer the 8-pounder.

The French used all three calibers for horse artillery-but they did prefer the 8-pounder.

Let's be honest…

If I haven't very much artillery on the field (Northern Italy) then I'd want my horse artillery to have 8 pounders – I wouldn't waste them supporting the cavalry – I'd use them for reserve purposes – the 8 pounders will provide punch – especially against the Austrian with their plentiful (but weedy) 3 pounders and 6 pounders.

If I've got a full complement of artillery then I'd want whatever was best:

- 6 pounder horse artillery for supporting reserve cavalry operations.

- 4 pounders would suffice for supporting smaller cavalry operations – such as a brigade of mounted dragoons.

@ Stoppage

Head protection from artillery and musketry direct fire would be nice but I don't think the helmets of the period would have offered that (even today that is not really the principal function of a military helmet). Indeed, the risk of

I was thinking more in terms of sword cuts and it seems we are in agreement that nothing much had changed in relation to the potential risk of injury. It is my suspicion that in many cases the protection offered by a cavalry helmet was probably in inverse proportion to its grandeur, although those extravagant metal crests and chenilles would interrupt the progress of a sword somewhat.

at the shooting tests the French conducted themselves they concluded that the 6 pdr performed better.

I don't understand the meaning of punch in this context, there the targets were quite soft, a louder bang for 8 pdr – yes I agree on this.

at the shooting tests the French conducted themselves they concluded that the 6 pdr performed better.

How?

And could you give examples. Merely stating what appears to be only opinion does not equal examples and proof of what you say.

And in this context, who is 'they'? When the Systeme AN XI was initially adopted by the artillery committee, the committee itself was divided on the adoption of the new system. Gassendi for one was against adoption.

In short, where is the data?

Was the 6-pounder more accurate? Was the range of the 6-pounder greater than the 8-pounder? The sustained rate of fire, two rounds per minute, was the same, and the 6-pounder required the same number of ammunition caissons that the 8-pounder did.

Punch. Perhaps 'perceived hitting power' is a better phrasing.

1…"There is no General Dessales listed in Six…There is a General Dessole, but he was not present at Waterloo."

2…"There are two General Salles in Six. Neither of them are artillery officers. The first listed is Adrien-Nicolas Piedefer, Marquis de La Salle and the second is Jean-Charlemagne Maynier, comte de La Salle"

3…"Where is your evidence regarding 'Dessoles'?"

4…"Thanks very much for that information. He's not in Six apparently as Six does not cover 1815 and only goes to 1814." –

"The information can be found here:"
1789-1815.com/dessales.htm

I will have to say that you are defiantly confident in your nescience…but if you had read what Hans – Karl posted, surely it would not have been necessary for Andrew to have corrected you.

"The French used all three calibers for horse artillery-but they did prefer the 8-pounder."

Using your own words: "And in this context, who is 'they'?"..

In this case ‘they' means the deserter Ruty and Tousard in your own posting in this thread

"Wasn't Allix's treatise a study of existing French artillery systems and promoting a new artillery system to replace them?"

"As it was written and/or published in 1827 was it not promoting the new Valee Artillery System which was adopted that year?"

---

To answer your question…you really don't know do you…you have never even read the book…

This is taken from your own posting, when you mention Allix from another thread:

"If you are going to study the artillery of the period, it is much better to get primary source material than secondary works that may or may not be accurate."

"For example, perhaps the following will be helpful:"

"Systeme d'Artillerie de Campagne du Lieutenant-General Allix

link

Surely you read the following in the book that you have recommended everyone to read

But for others who have not read the book, here is a summary of just a few items that Allix wrote in his book:

Gribeauval was an Officier d'artillerie, and not an Officier des Troupes de l'artillerie, and the Comite d'Artillerie de France, were packed with influential men ‘avec l'esprit des simples', and had a way of distorting the truth to enhance the glory and esteem of the French artillery ordnance.

The Lieutenant-General Allix goes on to explain that there are four ways in which to displace a piece, or battery:

1..By employing horses.

2..By manoeuvre a bras with the hands, in any circumstances.

3..By manoeuvre a la prolong to displace a piece or battery for a very short distance, or the direction. This was done by means of using artillery assortments. But it was never intended to be used as a means of maneouvre. It was with the intent firing the piece or battery at the end of the short manoeuvre.

4..By manoeuvre a la bricoles to manoeuvre a piece or battery without the aid of horses for long distances, or during an entire campaign.

Gribeauval proposed a method of manoeuvring the entire French Army without horses during a campaign. This method was called "manoeuvre a la bricoles". Gribeauval advanced his proposal to the Comite d'Artillerie de France, and top military minds on the subject. According to Gribeauval his artillery and artillery assortment was:

O Light
O Extremely mobile
O A workable arrangement
O Capable du manoeuvreait en campagne and was pulled entirely by canonniers using the new bricole without the aid of horses

Nonetheless no other country but France; attempted to develop or invent an artillery assortment to be used in such an outsized concept; as to consider a concept to adjust La Science de la Strategie. To save l'admininstration militaire une economie de 4,800 fr. par jour, ou 792,000 fr. Par an.

Thus drastically reducing the number of mounts needed in the French Artillery Corps. Gribeauval labored from 1765 to 1776, to revamp an already outdated artillery structure. Which he successfully accomplished, with one exception; this was the method of manoeuvre, by using bricole as the primary means of manoeuvre for artillery in the French Army.

It was nothing but false illusions; that Le Comite d'Artillerie de France had, when attempting such a ridiculous method of manoeuvre, for an entire army. The practical application of the concept never worked with the French Army at any level.

Le Comite d'Artillerie de France was influenced by the fact that the expense saved for France would be immense, no more horses or soldats du train, there would be no need to forage for the horses, as well as budget for the entire service du train. All this was what Gribeauval promised to provide in his grand services, that he was performing for France.

Gribeauval's artillery assortments was a perfect ruse de guerre; which he completely sold to everyone. To the point; that they were thoroughly engrossed, with la manoeuvre a la bricole.

But first and most importantly: he had his team of demonstrators (crews of canonniers) routinely do a physical fitness program using the new bricole. This was done on the Polygone's grounds, for the Comite so to speak. This training then proceeded to the towns and then paraded before the public. As time goes by; we begin to find that everyone, is becoming thoroughly engrossed with the new bricole.

Gribeauval had at his disposal; many influential men ‘avec l'esprit des simples' that were in favor of the new bricole, when he gave his grand performance, that would decide once and for all, Frances need for the new artillery assortment. On the plains of Frascati near Mezt; there was a military camp set up on the grounds of Saint-Omer. Gribeauval brought his artillery with no horses. The artillery crew had only the new artillery assortment to bricole with.

All demonstrations of manoeuvres were preformed on a terrain that was both horizontal and hard ground. The canonniers were able to perform wonders with their bricoloe, and were quite capable of manoeuvring with the body of troops, without causing any "embarrassment" (without impeding the movement) to their manoeuvres. There were even times, when they out preformed the body of troops. The military there; was un-accustomed to observing such speed, for artillery manoeuvring without horses.

Gribeauval pulled off his ruse de guerre without any contradictions to the grand service he was performing for France. Of course it helped that a vast majority d'anciens officiers d'artillerie were found at the camp de Frascati during the period of demonstrations.

But in the end; the results were "Mais le guerre eclate enfin; les bricoles sont aussitot repudiees dans les magisins du materiel, par le raison que la seule force motrice de l'artillerie, en campagne, est exclusivement la force des chevaux."

And to quote Allix once more:

"…viens d'en citer un exemple a l'occasion des bricoles du system Gribeauvel, vicieuses et absolument vicieuses, et qui n'en furent pas moins le motif determinant de l'adoption de ce system, si complet dailleurs et si superieur a celui des valleres."

–it's all in the book you have recommended

G'Day Hans – Karl

First off…please take all your ‘correspondance de Napoléon' that you have…and discard them…apparently they are worthless to use as a source…

The SME has blessed off on the English version of Rousselot…

So go out and get your new approved copy now!

Best Regards
Art

Yes, it is all in the books on the ultimate but incomplete reading list, but – in case one is unable to speak French, how to read it ?

Google translate says:

But the war finally breaks out; the knickknacks are immediately repudiated in the magisins of the material, for the reason that the only driving force of the artillery, in campaign, is exclusively the force of the horses

… have just given an example of the vicious and absolutely vicious tricks of the Gribeauvel system, which were nonetheless the decisive motive for the adoption of this system, so complete and so superior to that valleys.

"Bricole = odds and ends!"

!Hence- bricolage- 'do-it-yourself', 'tinkering [ with]', 'messing about'

See: bagatelle; amusette (!)

From Dictionnaire Classique from 1846:

Bricole: sidestraps; bricole; rebound; back-stroke; the uneasy rolling of a ship; indirectly.

From American Artillerist's Companion, Volume II, 110:

'A bricole is made with a leather strap, a trace rope, an iron ring, and a hook, and serves to pull the piece backward and forward. Bricoles cannot be called drag-ropes, which are used for a similar purpose in the English service; but to which they have not the least resemblance; neither can the be called straps, nor traces, these being only component parts of the bricole. Therefore, availing ourselves of the privilege of English military writers, who are hourly borrowing fresh terms from the French and German, and, although cautious of introducing French terms at all beyond what are found absolutely necessary for the explanation of technical phrases, which have been adopted by the English, in this instance we beg to be allowed the use of the word bricole to distinguish the French traces from the English drag ropes.'

From the same manual, Volume I, 401, the bricole is referenced as an 'artillery sortment' which are a group of artillery tools listed in the volume from 399-401. The British referred to them as artillery sidearms.

Adding to this new list:

* Bungee cord = elasticated short rope.

And my personal favourite…

* Toggle rope link

This latter – if memory serves correctly – was wound round the '58 belt behind the right-hand ammunition pouch.

You made the statement
"The favorite field piece of the French horse artillery arm was the 8-pounder"
what first hand source do you have to validate your statement?

The following might be helpful:

'The rumors of smaller guns for the light artillery must not come to pass. The 8-pounders need to remain in the hands of our best troops. If they are taken away, it will compromise the arm. If the infantry require heavier guns, then make more 8-pounders, or give them the new 6-pounders.
-Desvaux de Saint-Maurice to Marmont, 21 November 1803.

'Take the 8-pounders from the light artillery and you take their soul from them. The light artillery must maintain its ability to strike hard, which is something that cannot be accomplished with smaller-caliber cannon.'
-Hanicque to Marmont, 4 December 1803.

'The importance of the light artillery and its support in the movements of the cavalry are known. What would happen with lighter guns is not known, although the cavalry officers believe that the light artillery should never employ 4-pounder cannon or guns like the small caliber pieces used by the enemy.'-Nansouty to Berthier, 8 December 1803.

First hand comments by two senior artillery officers and one senior cavalry officer testify to the importance of the 8-pounder to the horse artiller arm.