"Alexander at Waterloo" Topic

"….Ferrill has proposed an interesting thought experiment to illustrate the far-reaching influence of Alexander's tactics over the following two millennia. He suggests that we compare the achievements of the Macedonians of Alexander with those of Napoleon's Grand Army in the battle of Waterloo against the British army of the Duke of Wellington. According to Ferrill, the purpose of the experiment is as follows:

"The best way to appreciate the qualities of Alexander's generalship (and of his army) is to compare him in some detail with another well known general. For this purpose I have selected Napoleon – not arbitrarily, but because the comparison has often been made, in passing, by military historians. The comparison between the two generals is not far-fetched. By the Age of Napoleon the practice of war had obviously changed in many ways since the time of Alexander, but closer examination will reveal that the changes were not as great as one might imagine, and it will also illustrate the enormous contribution of Alexander to the art of war."…."
Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

Best bit is the map of Waterloo with Agincourt superimposed, to the same scale. I had no idea such small field.

We have previously debated antique weapons eg the longbow or the spear against muskets of 1815. Interesting though.

Spears would be useless.
A formation of longbows could on defence beat an unit of muskets.
But the problem is given the training it takes to make a good longbowmen.
You'll at best have 10 000 of them. While the enemy has 120 000 musket armed infantry.

Also the logistics would be a nightmare.
A musket armed man Kan have 80 rounds in his cartridge box. And could easily carry another 150 in his backpack or napsack.

And the army could have millions upon millions of more rounds.

Now imagine how much it would take to transport 4 million arrows.
And try seeing a bowman carring 150 arrows.
Even with designated wagons to carry more arrows, it would seriously hinder any offensive attack by bow armed infantry.

Also a lot of the effect of the arrows could be mitigated by using musket and rifle armed skirmishes.

He hasn't taken onto account Wellington's air support and AirCav.

(smile)

Amicalement
Armand

"Since the British troops were able to protect themselves behind the ridge selected by Wellington, French guns did little damage. On the whole artillery was not an important factor in the battle of Waterloo."

Adkin estimates that 2/3 of Anglo-Allied casualties (11000) were caused by French artillery, and that is despite the use of the reverse slope.
He estimates that 45% of French casualties were from Allied artillery – 140000 men. This is skewed by the fighting around LHS and Hougoumont where the defenders were able to cause greater numbers of casualties by musketry.

If the Anglo-allied artillery had no enemy artillery to worry about, it could be tearing holes in the phalanx. It could be concentrated and little need to keep batteries in reserve.

Napoleonic columns were deep but there were formed of a succession of 3 deep lines. There were gaps between the lines – balls might hit several lines but might bounce over others. There was also the possibility of dodging to one side. Additionally, shrapnel would likely only affect one line.

Alexandrian phalanxes were solid blocks. A shrapnel burst in the middle would have far more men in the danger zone than a Napoleonic column.

Adkin estimates that one casualty was caused for every 1.5 rounds fired (which apparently agrees with studies from the era and later). If firing at Alexander's denser formations, these numbers would likely have been even more significant.

The phalanx is also reckoned to have relied on its cohesion for its strength. With great chunks being taken out by each burst of artillery fire, cohesion would have suffered. Across much of the Anglo-Allied front there were also terrain features to disorder a phalanx.

Once within musketry range, the phalangites in the rear are further disordered by having to step over the dead of the front ranks. This would have been more of an issue for them than a Napoleonic army again because of the need for cohesion and the density of the formation. It was considered an obstacle even at the time of the Battle of Magnesia.

Firepower was the method that finally overtook the pike formations of the late medieval and renaissance period.

The Phalanx probably would be worst off against Wellington's men, while peltasts and other light troops would probably fare better in that they can operate in open order and be less vulnerable to enemy fire.

I suspect that Wellington would understand that he could build fortifications much in the same way they would hold off the Zulus at Rorke's Drift by using barricades.

I would suggest that this Ferrill feller is either an imbecile or hasn't really done his homework! For example, the stuff about Napoleon delaying starting the battle because he was 'sluggish'. Whereas Alexander was much faster and would have attacked straight away. One of Napoleon's most famous attributes was his speed!

The delay at Waterloo was more about the weather, the condition of the ground, and the difficulty of getting troops into place after matching through much of the night. All factors which would have affected Alexander as well.

On a side note…I wonder where Adkin got his 'one casualty for every 1.5 rounds fired' from? In his "Seven Years Campaigning…" Henegan complained bitterly about the quantity of ammunition used by the army. I forget the exact figures but he calculated that at Vittoria the British/Portuguese shot off well over a million rounds. As his job entailed supplying the stuff I suspect his figures are accurate.

Adkin is talking of artillery rounds, not musket.

Thanks!

Amicalement
Armand

Ah! Thanks for that, Swampster. That makes more sense.

As swampster said, that is artillery.
Musket hit rates varies from as high as 1:200 to 1:3000

Of course all numbers are average.
If you use the 1.5 number for artillery at Borodino not only would it mean not a single Russian or French musket ball hit a single soldier nor any cavalry sword killed or wounded an enemy.
But you'd problebly have to up the casualties to 120 000 total for the battle.