"This Secret Weapon is How Napoleon Nearly Conquered Europe" Topic

"Most historians agree that Napoleon was not a great military innovator. Instead, he won his battles by brilliantly combining the innovations of others, such as Marshal de Broglie's system of military divisions, Jean de Gribeauval's standardized artillery, and the effective French infantry drill regulations of 1791. In this respect, Napoleon's military ideas were in line with the general direction of European military thought in the early nineteenth century. However, Napoleon did innovate in one significant way: while during the eighteenth century most European cavalry had cast off their armor, Napoleon was a fanatic for heavy cavalry, and re-established a massive corps of armored men on horseback, his elite cuirassiers and carabiniers. This seemingly anachronistic development was a key part of his military legacy, and should be remembered as one of his lasting contributions to military science"

link

Napoleon's 'secret weapon' was the Grande Armee and its commanders.

Napoleon did develop both the corps d'armee and the Cavalry Reserve, as well as an army artillery reserve. That is three operational and tactical innovations.

Let us not forget that the era also generated the idea of a modern general staff, albeit with bittersweet consequences.

And Marshal Alexandre Berthier, Pierre Bourcet, and the French reformers had much to do with that.

The Prussians were late-comers to that organization and in 1815 their version of a general staff was in its infancy…

Napoleon did innovate in one significant way… This seemingly anachronistic development was a key part of his military legacy, and should be remembered as one of his lasting contributions to military science.

This is gibberish.

Brechtel and RittervonBek are quite right, of course.

Among the cheats in the article are quoting Napoleon as saying that "without cavalry, battles are without result" while not mentioning that it's pursuit cavalry he's talking about, talking about him inheriting only one regiment of cuirassiers without mentioning all the unarmored heavy cavalry regiments, and writing as though the lancers were intended to add to the shock value of the Cuirassier brigades instead of taking over picket duty and such.

Not to mention that, trooper for trooper, there were a number of other European nations who could match the French – what the French had were commanders and a command structure that allowed full use of all battlefield arms

Well a site that has that retard on its ownership pages and recites garbage like "What actually constitutes true realism is, of course, an appropriate source of controversy."

… really does mean, and I'm sure the 'leadership' is really a cover for something else, that the garbage they spout has nothing to do with actual factual history.
Please keep your political bending gymnastics away from our history thanks…

Do I hear the Dawghouse door being opened? Could be…

"However, Napoleon did innovate in one significant way: while during the eighteenth century most European cavalry had cast off their armor, Napoleon was a fanatic for heavy cavalry, and re-established a massive corps of armored men on horseback, his elite cuirassiers and carabiniers."

But he didn't go far enough. If he'd had Horse Grenadiers, no infantry square would've held long; A 'caracole' of waves of grenade-throwing cavalry would break them open for a finishing charge of the heavy cavalry… ;-)

Napoleon was a fanatic for heavy cavalry,

Well utter garbage only goes one way… yes 'The Wild Wild West'meets Napoleon would make a great venue for such fantasies…

The most decisive French cavalry charge was that of Kellermann at Marengo, no armour was worn by those regiments participating, also the French dragoons were heavily involved at Eylau, no armour as well, the Saxon Garde du Corps who broke into the Rajaevsky redoubt – again no armour.

Do we know who this TS Allen is?

link

Canned food

Kellermann's cavalry charge at Marengo was indeed decisive, but it was in conjunction with artillery and infantry.

The Poles at Somosierra could have been the most spectacular French cavalry charge of the period.

Murat's charge at Eylau was both spectacular and decisive. It knocked the Russians back on their heels and staved off what could have been a loss.

Doumerc's cavalry charge at the Berezina was also a decisive charge.

Whether or not Kellermann's was the 'most decisive' is a matter of degree as well as being based on research and not hyperbole.

Pajol's cavalry charge at Montereau was also decisive.

"A 'caracole' of waves of grenade-throwing cavalry would break them open for a finishing charge of the heavy cavalry."

I have never heard of this before. Been gaming Nappy since 1981. Maybe a caracole of pistols. Was it in a Hollywood movie once?

If it wasn't, it should have been.

Heavy cavalry did in no way contribute to Napoleons military success. In none of his battles was the heavy cavalry a decisive arm in a way that husars or dragoons could not have been – this is pure nonsense.

The last battle decided by heavy cavalry exclusively was Rossbach

Indeed, we could all write a better article for the rag… ahh but maybe not… |=;-}

caracole

used in the 17th century, please note the ;-)

Well, yes, you'd want to wheel away after throwing your grenade so the following rank(s) could throw theirs next (the same tactic like the caracole making their shooting attacks… ;-)

p.s. I predict "Napoleonic Horse Grenadiers" will show up in an alternate history novel/game eventually. Seems too fun not to. In real life, they'd need to have good throwing arms… ;-)

However, the senior cavalry regiment of the Imperial Guard was horse grenadiers…

And the carabiniers had their title changed during the Revolution to horse grenadiers and had to exchange their hats for bearskins. When their old title was restored the bearskins remained.

No hand grenades, though…

Heavy cavalry did in no way contribute to Napoleons military success. In none of his battles was the heavy cavalry a decisive arm in a way that husars or dragoons could not have been – this is pure nonsense.

That is not an accurate statement. The Cavalry Reserve under Murat, and Bessieres in 1809, contributed to the success of the Grande Armee on various fields, such as Eylau, Eckmuhl, Austerlitz, and Jena, not to mention the battles in 1809 against the Austrians.

The last battle decided by heavy cavalry exclusively was Rossbach

Seydlitz was on the field by himself without the rest of the army?

I don't think so.

The Prussian artillery also played a key role in the action and even the Prussian infantry, although most of it was not engaged, contributed to the victory. The Prussian heavy cavalry under Seydlitz charged multiple times and greatly contributed to the victory, but even though they can be considered to have played a decisive role, the Prussian coordination of the different arms was decisive.

Can't wait to see what he has to say when he discovers the reintroduction of the lance.

The spear, whether carried to be thrown or in melee, has to be by a wide margin the longest-lived human weapon in continuous use.

It's quite astonishing that it remained effective long after not just edged weapons, but quite a few others too.

I want to learn more about cavalry throwing grenades, caracole or not.

>>p.s. I predict "Napoleonic Horse Grenadiers" will show up in an alternate history novel/game eventually. Seems too fun not to. In real life, they'd need to have good throwing arms… ;-)

Which is why the Brits used the 'mills bomb' but Gerries had to have a stick on them- much better bowlers- Eton, Harrow and Cambridge eh? When did Germany ever win a cricket match?
≠ d

Nappy should have turned his Grand Battery to Grand Grenade throwers instead, mounted the lot of them with the Horse Artillery, gone up the hill and bombed all those pesky 'English' squares. But then, perhaps every other British Soldier would have had a cricket bat issued for such occasions.

Ahhaaa… so now we know, Wellingtons Secret Weapon [System…] oh yes, he already said that, …

^^ Touche`!

;-)

In real life, they'd need to have good throwing arms

Or those nifty grenade launchers the Russians used in the first part of the 18th Century.

As to the original contention, it was not the armor that made the French cuirassiers effective, it was the weight. Big men on big horses. And other armies did, indeed have similar or better forces – Russia, Austria, and Britain to name three.

It's quite astonishing that it remained effective long after not just edged weapons, but quite a few others too.

Intriguing…like the bayonet, etc, and…?

@ 42flanker

The sword, sling, battle axe, mace, plumbata, falx, rhomphaia, halberd, bow, crossbow, arquebus, and musket all both predate the lance and fell into disuse before it did (a lance is just a spear carried by a mounted man AFAIC). Arguably one could add the pike to that list, but OTOH I'm not sure one can really argue that one pointy stick outlasting another proves a lot. Throughout that whole time, the method of construction changed, but the manner of use did not.

A combination of machine-guns, HE and barbed wire finally settled the lance's hash by making horse cavalry unviable. At that point, there was no longer a way to close with your opponent fast enough to use a sharp stick on him before yourself getting killed, even with the advantage of a horse's speed. Even so lancers were still a thing in WW1, up to the point where it was noticed you couldn't use them as such any more, which was some time after this became the case.

A bayonet, of course, makes your firearm into an improvised spear. So in that guise the spear's arguably still in use, but then again, not really, as it isn't the main intended use of the weapon.

Oops, I meant of course "post-date the lance"…

>> it was the weight. Big men on big horses.

As shown @ Austerlitz in a way- the 'heavies' of La Garde manoeuvred first up a slope, over the 'crest' to a flatter then downward slope to take on the Imperial Russian Guards best, so to speak, neither in armour. In a 'division' attack of squadrons in line… and then another of 'little chasseurs' came to rescue them… ;-)