"Light Infantry & smoothbore accuracy L C18th & E.C19th" Topic

As soldiers often say "And then the training just kicked in…"

Or, as in cases such as the above, not.

Not really, you mistake my emphasis. I merely remark that the aide commented that the Prussian troops were relatively poor (at that specific point, for, as you say, very cogent reasons) not that the French were in any way particularly good.

Whirlwind: Well, keep in mind that he is talking about line troops, not jagers or fusiliers at the beginning of the war. As St. Cyr says, by 1794-5, the Allies had found ways to counter the 'mob' tactics, however surprising they were at the beginning. Who said it, "War is a learning experience?"

G'Day Whirlwind,

Yes I now see how my comment could have been misunderstood, I should have explained it better…

Voltigeurs from both l'infanterie de ligne et l'infanterie leger were considered les enfants perdus.

Officially the voltigeurs were to replace the eclaireurs formed from selected men by the battalions from l'infanterie de ligne et l'infanterie leger, so that the l'infanterie leger could execute the role and missions they were created for.

Best Regards
Art

Kevin

"Two basic drill manuals guided the tactical exercises of French battalions-both prescribed a rather formal tactical system. The more important of the two, Reglement concernant l'exercise et les manoeuvres de l'infanterie du 1er aout 1791, ordered a fairly stiff manual of arms, a normal marching pace of seventy-six steps per minute, and a quick step of 100 per minute…The other drill regulation, a simplified version intended for use by volunteer battalions, was commonly called the Instruction de M Noailles, after the chairman of the committee that composed it. In most ways the two manuals shared the same tactical system, except that the Instruction directed that troops form line in only two ranks.'-217."

please explain why you think that these two regulations share the same tactical system, because I don't think they do.

G'Day Bill,

I am not certain what you mean by this statement:

"…instructions were provided, all referred to line troops, not chasseurs or other specialist infantry. This is true right up to Davout's 1811 instructions."

Could you explain what your mean please, because even in Davout's correspondence he mentions the following:

"Comme il est important pour mettre de l'uniformité, qu'il y ait des bâses d'adoptées, je vous adresse, mon cher Général, un résumé de manœuvres, aux quelles je vous invite à faire exercer les régiments sous vos ordres, soit d'infanterie légère ou d'infanterie de ligne…"

Further down Davout writes:

"(Au général Dessaix) Il sera inutile, mon cher Général, que vous envoyez copie de cette instruction au 33e léger, attendu que j'en envoie copie au général Barbanègre, pour qu'il lui en remette une expédition."

Perhaps the problem lies in the fact that Davout feels that "Les compagnies des voltigeurs devant avoir déjà des connaissances de ces manœuvres…" so there is no need to copy written instructions for these compagnies. Perhaps I am missing something?

Best Regards
Art

Hi Art,

Got that. But to confirm that the term "enfants perdus" is never used of chasseurs or carabiniers in this period, or by writers who are familiar with period usages?

G'Day Whirlwind,

It was used for l'infanterie légère and d'infanterie de ligne on missions-roles performed by d'eclaireurs, and detachments (including voltigeurs when created). I have never read it used that all infanterie légère are considered enfants perdus. I followed up on my opinion by researching it in French military dictionaries for validation.

Of course, I have not read everything…a thimble of sand off the beach worth of books in French.

Unless you have read otherwise, and French writers of the period did think that l'infanterie légère are enfant perdus, then I stand corrected. That is the best answer I can give you for total validation that you want.

Best Regards
Art

Good Day Art & Whirlwind,

Perhaps a key aspect is to make a step backward and look at army composition :

INFANTERIE DE LIGNE
-- INFANTERIE DE BATAILLE
-- INFANTERIE LEGERE
INFANTERIE DE RESERVE

--- --- ---

- BATTLE INFANTRY
LINE BATTLE INFANTRY
SOVEREIGN BATTLE INFANTRY

LIGHT LINE INFANTRY
LIGHT INFANTRY OF IMPERIAL GUARD
--- --- ---
Armed Forces> corps à pied = service of light infantry
since the use of pikes: pikemen = battle infantry
arquebusiers and musketeers = light infantry
---
BATTLE INFANTRY includes Grenadier companies
LIGHT INFANTRY includes Carabinieri companies
but: Grenadiers not really different from Carabinieri

since the year 13 the infantry of battle includes Voltigeurs, what constitutes the introduction into the battle infantry of a light infantry, with battle infantry = in the sense of a solid and massed troop

March 1790: Constituent Assembly called Line Infantry > "Battle Infantry"
- as opposed to national guards
- to fight in line
- free from detachments
- ready to make firm (?)

so different from isolated volunteer battalions and chasseurs battalions (who are the only light infantry). then the meaning of the word line changed: taken as opposed to the word Guard or Elite Corps, and no longer in opposition to LIGHT CORPS. so line infantry has been replaced by "battle infantry"
---

The battle infantry is the only foot troop in France for which a tactical school has been established (by the "law": the regulations of August 1, 1791
---

the light infantry was formed into small aggregations, so that they could be detached easily as their destination requires.

G'Day Eric,

Thank you for your reply…therefore the question I have is this:

Have you read of any French writers of the period that thought that l'infanterie légère as a whole, are enfant perdus?

If so …then I stand corrected.

Best Regards
Art

when one try to look a the whole "repertoire", there are a lot of "elements" / notions ..

TIRAILLEURS
-- TIRAILLEUR A PIED
-- TIRAILLEUR A CHEVAL
CHASSEURS
-- CHASSEURS A PIED
-- CHASSEURS A CHEVAL
GRENADIERS
VOLTIGEURS
ENFANTS PERDUS
FLANQUEURS
CARABINIERS
-- CARABINIERS A CHEVAL
-- CARABINIERS D' INFANTERIE
-- CARABINIERS A PIED
TROUPE D' ELITE (hommes choisis)
FANTASSIN
MOUSQUETAIRES

Hello Art,

"Have you read of any French writers of the period that thought that l'infanterie légère as a whole, are enfant perdus?"

i have collected some specific elements on "enfants perdus" > i need to organize them (and translate them) as to be readable on the forum. your question is very interesting, from the single notion of enfants perdus, i needed to check all the way up to army composition.

i don't think you will stand corrected ! ; ) the enfants perdus can be seen as the historical point of origin of what became the service of tirailleurs in general, but i doubt that the whole light infantry can be seen as is.

best regards

G'Day Bill,

I am not certain what you mean by this statement:

"…instructions were provided, all referred to line troops, not chasseurs or other specialist infantry. This is true right up to Davout's 1811 instructions."

Good Morning, Art: I hope you were able to be with family during the holidays.

I meant that Davout's instructions were primarily for training the center companies to support the light companies, not train the Legere or voltigeurs:

Les compagnies de voltigeurs devant avoir déjà connaissance des manœuvres, il sera bon d'exercer les premières fois avec elles les compagnies du centre; c'est à dire une de chaque, en mêlant les fusiliers avec les voltigeurs.

and:

Les compagnies des voltigeurs qui sont des compagnies d'élite, ne peuvent sans souvent de graves inconvénients faire ce service, il m'a donc paru convenable que les compagnies qui peuvent être dans le cas de faire ce service, y soient éxercées.

A good deal of the instructions one finds during the war in all armies for skirmish activity is primarily directed at line troops rather than light, from Brunswick's 1791 instructions for the third rank right up to Davout's.

Hi Art,

That's great, many thanks. And no worries, I don't have a counter-example in my pocket to brandish at you, I am just trying to improve my understanding of the "langue militaire"

I'm sorry I can't follow why an average throw away epithet in any language (but the English indeed use it the same way) has to become a strictly defined and regulated piece of terminology suddenly detailling a troop type virtually unknown- except that the actions can and would have been taken by any men forced into a compromised siutation in order to break a deadlock (Land, mountains or sea included).

Moreover >>since the year 13 the infantry of battle includes Voltigeurs, what constitutes the introduction into the battle infantry of a light infantry, with battle infantry = in the sense of a solid and massed troop<<

distorts what history tells us. Voltigeur were not 'introduced' that year- they were perhaps finally recognised by management AND something of a uniform manner [of use, not clothing] was officially adopted; yet we see light companies of some kind all the way back to 1786 and possibly beforehand in constant 'attachment' to line units.

The 'titles' given to the form of organisation, action and combat is largely semantics. It is the need to encounter and reduce a problem, not introduce yet another grand title- which is what the armies faced in particular to the dismemberment of 18thC warfare.

This was a secondary consideration as 'La patrie en danger' was the primary. Thus volunteers did what mobs do- scatter and skirmish to overcome or perish; formed trained troops used a more disciplined method and perished less. Imbuing 'chasseur' battalions of raw recruits with some formal training didn't overcome their mob mentality, it merely condensed it to a more defined arena and was used less and less as the 'logic' of order took over (and the results shown).

While endowing "Davout's instructions", of course they were actually written and those of a very competent and experienced infantry regimental officer, GDV Morand (88e DB, 10e Legere etc.) and multiple campaigns through the Revolution and Egypt under multiple named luminaries of Napoleon.

Morand.

Do you think it was by accident that his brigade (the 10e Legere- deux Bons) had one of the most important places in the battle line of Austerlitz?
regards d

Thus volunteers did what mobs do- scatter and skirmish to overcome or perish;

SHaT1984: Historically, psychologically, that is not what mobs do: They don't scatter.

formed trained troops used a more disciplined method and perished less.

In 1794-95, is there any evidence that the French 'mobs' perished in larger numbers than the disciplined troops of the Allies?

Imbuing 'chasseur' battalions of raw recruits with some formal training didn't overcome their mob mentality, it merely condensed it to a more defined arena and was used less and less as the 'logic' of order took over (and the results shown).

I don't follow this as a description of the French Tirailleur development.

It is also a political-cultural drive involved. The French saw the Revolution as a complete break from the old system, from subject to citizen. The Revolution was the birth of the individual, the "New Man" and part of that persona was a new way of war, the self-motivated skirmisher as opposed to the mindless automatons marching in step. That image was a central theme of Revolutionary propaganda.

Because there was a strong cultural view of behavior during this period, the French and Allies agreed that the French were 'naturally' more disposed to skirmishing… having a native intelligence for that type of combat. For instance, Scharnhorst describes this in more than one place.

And of course, Davout's instructions were written by competent and experienced officers. Who suggested otherwise?

"In 1794-95, is there any evidence that the French 'mobs' perished in larger numbers than the disciplined troops of the Allies?"

Yes, to some extent: in both in both Sabron and Fortescue, and anecdotally in British and allied first-person sources, as well as dispatches.

In 1794-95, is there any evidence that the French 'mobs' perished in larger numbers than the disciplined troops of the Allies?

Yes. I have had a look at the casualty figures given in Digby Smith's Napoleonic Wars Data Book and the French consistently suffered heavier casualties on the battlefield, especially in terms of killed and wounded. This is true against the Austrian, British, Dutch, Hessian and Prussian forces. The converse is true against the Spanish, and possibly against the Sardinians, although the latter is disputed and I wouldn't feel confident judging either way.

G'Day Gents,

"In 1794-95, is there any evidence that the French 'mobs' perished in larger numbers than the disciplined troops of the Allies?"

Yes by the French themselves in their reports, and the French regularly admitted to suffering heavier casualties on the battlefield, and that they lost. It was the only way to have new replacements sent. Citoyen David gives a clear picture as does Soult, and others…even Sergent Fricasse is not shy in telling the truth.

Best Regards
Art

Art, would you be able to guide me to documents recording French casualty figures in 1794-95/

Good day SHat,

"Moreover >>since the year 13 the infantry of battle includes Voltigeurs, what constitutes the introduction into the battle infantry of a light infantry, with battle infantry = in the sense of a solid and massed troop<<

distorts what history tells us. Voltigeur were not 'introduced' that year (..)"

Well the meaning is not about when (which year) voltigeurs are introduced or used.
it's a comment about when the "law" sanctioned officially something that relates to the composition of great bodies of troops with relation to light infantry (infanterie legére). in other words the "law" (state-comitee, decree, etc.) do inject light infantry into battle infantry, not from a "practical point of view" as you suggest. > but in an official way, promulgating rules for that part of "infanterie de ligne".
i think the whole series of comments relates to K. quote about Colin and enfants perdus and tirailleurs/ light infantry.

that said, i really do apologize for the eventual (very) bad translation in English which might be misleading , if so, again i do apologize ! ; )

Art's question is a bit arcane, but it's a very good one, because it leads to consider things at an upper level. .. arcane study of ligne de science …
; )

best regards

(Ps: Art : did you get my mail or not ?)

"In 1794-95, is there any evidence that the French 'mobs' perished in larger numbers than the disciplined troops of the Allies?"

Yes by the French themselves in their reports, and the French regularly admitted to suffering heavier casualties on the battlefield, and that they lost. It was the only way to have new replacements sent. Citoyen David gives a clear picture as does Soult, and others…even Sergent Fricasse is not shy in telling the truth.

Art, Shat et al:
That wasn't quite what I was asking. I should have been more specific. The question I had was about the 'mobs', not the entire French army. The mobs I assumed Shat was referring to were the large groups sent out to skirmish. The other question was the term 'perished.' Certainly the total casualties for the French armies were higher than the Allies during this period, but were the 'mobs' killed in higher proportions, equal proportions to the rest of the army or did large numbers just not came back or were captured?

GDay Bill,

If the instructions were solely for the line infantry, why does Davout write the following:

'I have received, my dear general, your letter of the 16th and the five copies of your project to teach the service of the skirmishers to all troops…'

‘…I will send it to all generals commanding a division of infantry, ordering them to use the rest of the season to exercise all companies in this…'

‘(To the general Dessaix) It will be needless, my dear General, that you send a copy of this instruction to the 33e léger, as I send a copy to General Barbanègre, so that he forwards a copy to it.'

'The companies of the voltigeurs are already familiar with these manoeuvers, it will be proper to exercise the center companies with the companies of voltigeurs for the first time, it means a mixing of the fusiliers with the voltigeurs.'

‘I send you, my dear General, a summary of the manoeuvres that I invite you to train the regiments under your orders to do, whether of light infantry or of infantry of line.'

The Crucial point for me is that Davout specifies all troops, both light and line are to be trained. No where does Davout indicate that only line infantry, and not light infantry are to be trained.

Davout states that voltigeurs are already familiar with these manoeuvers, but doesn't say the same for light infantry

Best Regards,
Art

If the instructions were solely for the line infantry, why does Davout write the following:

'I have received, my dear general, your letter of the 16th and the five copies of your project to teach the service of the skirmishers to all troops…'Davout states that voltigeurs are already familiar with these manoeuvers, but doesn't say the same for light infantry.

Hi Art:

From the statement:

The companies of the voltigeurs are already familiar with these manoeuvers, it will be proper to exercise the centre companies with the companies of voltigeurs for the first time, it means a mixing of the fusiliers with the voltigeurs.

1. I am assuming that this training was principally for line troops because Fusiliers are mentioned, but not Chasseurs, though they would be the Leger equivalent.

2. all troops are to be trained in the procedures. One would assume that he meant voltigeurs were included in 'the all troops, light and line,' even though it has already been stated the voltigeurs know the procedures. I am assuming that the Legere would be also, or their center companies would have been mentioned too. Regardless, they would train WITH the line to be able to coordinate effectively.

3. It is pretty obvious by this:
(To the general Dessaix) It will be needless, my dear General, that you send a copy of this instruction to the 33e léger, as I send a copy to the general Barbanègre, so that he forwards a copy to it. [ In 1811 General Barbanègre took command of the 1st Brigade of Dessaix's division] that every regiment received a copy of the instructions… which would be needed to ensure every regiment was on the same page while training, regardless of how familiar the voltigeurs and/or leger were with the procedures.

That is my take on it.

Certainly, there could have been leger regiments that were untrained in the procedures… New troops was one reason Davout felt training was necessary, however, training the troops IN the procedures outlined [hence my comment] is different than having troops already familiar with the procedures train WITH other units to insure smooth cooperation on the battlefield.

G'Day Bill,

I am not going to cut and paste everything I just posted earlier…but I will paste this one again

‘I send you, my dear General, a summary of the manoeuvres that I invite you to train the regiments under your orders to do, whether of light infantry or of infantry of line.'

Davout is giving an order in a nice professional manner in this correspondence…

I understand that everyone just reads this one correspondence dated in Oct 1811, and everyone has their take on it…

But it's all explained in his previous and later correspondences, on why ALL regiments; infantry, artillery, and cavalry need to train…every infantry regiment is getting a large amount of replacements, some up to 800 men.

That is why I couldn't understand your comment at first to Dave in regards to:

"We recognized that it was generally harmful at first to take a certain number of men by company, for flankers and skirmishers, and that it was preferable to take entire companies."

Your response posted 05 Jan 2021 is incorrect, because in Davout's correspondence, he wants to make certain this training is standardized in accordance with the French Army…he is going to have Inspectors arriving shortly. Best part is…Davout is requesting for the additional Inspectors.

Davout writes Napoleon:

Il n'y a dans ce moment-ci a l'armee qu'un inspecteur aux revues et cinq sous-inspecteurs. Je pense qu'il serait necessaire d'en envoyer encore cinq, afin d'en avoir 2 au quartier genereal, 4 aux divisions d'infanterie, 2 aux divisions de cavalerie, 1 au parc d'artillerie et 1 dans la place de Danzig.

Bill when you get a chance you need to read Davout's correspondences…they are great..well…at least for me ;-)

Then again I like to read regulations…hmmm…maybe I need a life :-)

Best Regards
Art

G'Day Bill

Paint me stupid….

TYPO….disregard:

…"some up to 800 men."

It's true a fish has a longer attention span than I do…and my brain's memory card is full of junk, which causes memory brain card corruption…;-)

Best Regards
Art