"Best Book on Tactics" Topic

Has anyone found a single book that they believe provides a decent description of Napoleonic battle tactics?
In one of my posts here, about rallying units, the French order to disperse was brought up up and I had never heard of it, either in reading or in any rules. It would be nice if there was a handy reference source. I know I should spend a few years reading and studying….but I am getting old…

for what army?

My favorite is With Musket, Cannon, and Sword by Brent Nosworthy.

Battle Tactics of Napoleon and his Enemies by Brent Nosworthy.

There are too many errors and wrong assumptions in the Nosworthy book. I would not recommend it.

George Nafziger's Imperial Bayonets is much superior and is excellent.

link

Additionally, Chapters II, III, and XVI of John Elting's Swords Around a Throne are also excellent on the subject for the Grande Armee.

link

Robert Quimby's The Background of Napoleonic Warfare is more than helpful.

link

These ones have many examples of tactical practice:

Nafziger Collection – Messrs ZHMODIKOV – Tactics of the Russian Army in the Napoleonic wars vol 1

Nafziger Collection – Messrs ZHMODIKOV – Tactics of the Russian Army in the Napoleonic wars vol 2

(Be careful – many, many lovely goodies in the Nafziger Collection)

Supporting Kevin's suggestion – this is great on theory from training manuals:

Nafziger collection – NAFZIGER Imperial Bayonets

Battle Tactics by Nosworthy is the best.

Tactics & The Experience of Battle in the Age of Napoleon by Muir is very good too, and very readable.

Nafziger is okay and very interesting in its field, but it is the end of the journey not the beginning and there are a couple of serious errors in there which cause issues even now.

Second the recommendation of the Zhmodikovs' two volumes-they are excellent and are full of useful information.

Also in the Nafziger collection is a translation Jean Duteil's De l'Usage de l'Artillerie Nouvelle dans la Guerre de Campagne translated by Charles Shallcross. The English title is The New Use of Artillery in Field Wars: Necessary Knowledge. This volume was the only artillery manual of the period that dealt with subjects above the company/battery level. It sets out clearly the French artillery doctrine after the introduction of the Gribeauval field artillery system.

I understand you're writing your own Napoleonic rules. I'd be the last to criticise such an endeavour (pots and kettles, and all that), but when there are so many existing choices out there, I'm curious to know: what itch are you trying to scratch that no published set can reach?

Battle Tactics by Nosworthy is the best.

The best what?

Sure-If you want to read about…

-incorrect definitions of what a division in an infantry battalion or a squadron in a cavalry regiment is…and that the cavalry squadron was approximately the infantry equivalent of a company…

-not realizing that French infantry were trained to fight with their packs on…

-read about the French Cuirassiers d'Espagne, armed with lances…which never existed.

-That Marbot was the commander of the 23d Chasseurs a Cheval in Russia and not merely 'serving' with the regiment…

-that the French regiments at Albuera took the British infantry brigade in the rear instead of in the flank…and being told that it was a division, not a brigade…and that the French cavalry was not merely the Lancers of the Vistula but also the 2d Hussars…

-That there were only 7 regiments of Cuirassiers in the Grande Armee instead of the actual 12, later 15…

-That French cuirassiers were only able to charge at the trot…

-That the French horse artillery arm had nine regiments instead of six…

-That two French artillery officers, Valliere and Gribeauval, were officers in different armies…

-That at close range, artillery was 'generally unable' to inflict more casualties than an infantry battlion occupying the same frontage…

-That counterbattery fire was a primary mission of artillery…

-That field pieces were 'difficult to transport in the field in a timely fashion once the campaigning had begun in earnest.'

-That it was common practice for French artillerymen to
'abandoned their pieces with seeming unconcern.'

-That the French carabiniers did not wear the cuirass until 1812…

-That Chasseurs were the one of the two elite companies in a light infantry battalion a Pied: `After March 1803 it was exclusively reserved for the elite company in a light infantry battalion.'

-That direct fire is misunderstood…

-That artillery, to defend itself, had to have infantry in front of the battery…

-That dragoons were 'thought of and used as medium cavalry…and that they 'were assigned the lion's share of housekeeping duties, such as outpost duties…

-That the term 'voltigeur' means 'to flit about…'

So, too many errors in fact and a lack of understanding of period organization and tactics renders this volume unreliable.

Tactics & The Experience of Battle in the Age of Napoleon by Muir is very good too, and very readable.

An excellent volume that is indeed very readable. However, it probably should actually be entitled British Tactics and The Experience of Battle in the Age of Napoleon.

It is also much superior to Nosworthy's work.

I have to agree with Brechtel198 regarding Noseworthy's book. He makes a lot of unsubstantiated assumptions. I remember reading it and at one point he makes a very definitive statement about the origins of the French tactical system, a statement much at odds with conventional thinking, and I remember thinking: "Wow, that's something I always wondered about. Where did he find the information on that?" So I followed his nearest footnote and found… nothing. He cites no source at all for his assertion. Professional historians were not kind with their reviews when the book first came out. So use with caution.

@ScottWashburn,

Nosworthy is very well referenced compared to other works in the field (I have just picked up the book to check, and there they are), with the exception of Muir who is equally well referenced. I would be interested to know which statement you are talking about. Nafziger's view is self-consciously much more limited. The older 'surveys' of Napoleonic tactics (Elting, Chandler) have no useful referencing at all, so everything they say is pretty much assertion.

Incorrect on Col Elting.

The references listed for his chapter on tactics (XVI) list, among others:

-James Arnold's article 'A Reappraisal of Column and Line in the Napoleonic Wars.

-Hubert Camon's La Bataille Napoleonienne, La Guerre Napoleonienne, and Quand Comment Napoleon a Concu son Systeme de Bataille.

-Jean Colin's L'Infanterie au XVIII Siecle: La Tactique.

-Robert Quimby's The Background of Napoleonic Warfare, Chapter I,

-John Lynn, The Bayonets of the Republic, Chapter I.

-Antoine Roche-Aymon's Des Troupes Legeres.

What does Nosworthy 'list' in his bibliography that is better or more accurate?

I didn't find Nosworthy particularly well-referenced and the above comments illustrate the errors even on simple subjects such as infantry battalions and cavalry squadrons.

Brechtel
Thank you for providing actual examples of what you thought were wrong.
I find it annoying when people just say things like "there are a lot of errors" without actual examples & specifics.

Overall, despite some blunders, like French infantry manoeuvering in pas de charge and taking the treaty of Menuier as being how the French did it – still Nafziger – Imperial bayonets.

Otherwise a good start is Lynn : The Bayonets of the Republic.

To learn how the French fought, and there you will see quite a different picture as a lot of edutainement writers like Elting – is Bressonnet – either in original French or the translation by Bowden : Napoleon's apogee.

In French there are lots of good publications like

Foucart, Campagnes 1806 (Fr)

Iéna (Fr)

Prenzlow et Lübeck (Fr)

la cavalerie pendent la campagne de prusse (Fr)

best is go to the

usefull stuff section

TMP link

there you will find plenty for the French, by authors like

Grouard, Auguste – Antoine : Les batailles de Napoléon

short work in response to that one of Camon, very interesting

Grivet : Études sur la tactique

very good discussions of infantry tactics of Frederick the Great to 1815

Renard : Betrachtungen über die Taktik der Infanterie, Brüssel und Leipzig 1858

and in French

Considerations sur la Tactique …

Der kleine Krieg im Geiste der neueren Kriegführung: Oder: Abhandlung über die Verwendung und den Gebrauch aller drei Waffen im kleinen Kriege. Erläutert durch acht Kupfertafeln …, 3rd edition (1st edition 1822?), by Karl von Decker. Published by E. S. Mittler, 1828. 302 pages:

Okunev. Examen raisonné des propriétés des trois armes, l'infanterie, la cavalerie et l'artillerie, de leur emploi dans les batailles, et de leur rapport entre elles:

and a must read

Colin

La tactique et la discipline dans les armées de la Révolution (Fr)

A misleading title, in his preface of over 100 pages – Colin discusses tactics from the Ancien Regime well into the Napoleonic Wars, extremely helpful to understand how the French infantry fought in different periods

Remarks on cavalry, tr. [by G.F. Koehler]. By Charles Emmanuel de Warnery 1798

Claus Telp : The Evolution of the Operational Art 1740 – 1813

another must is

Essai historique sur la tactique de l'infanterie depuis l'organisation
des armées permanentes jusqu'a nos jours.
Gérôme, Auguste Clément, 1857-
Paris, Charles-Lavauzelle [1903]

and for artillery a critical review

good and critical discussion of French artillery and also some of their generals, essential read

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

and also

Military Studies
by duc d'Elchingen Michel Ney, Abraham James, Michel Ney

on the usefull stuff section you will find the links, enjoy all those books as much as I did.

"I understand you're writing your own Napoleonic rules. I'd be the last to criticise such an endeavour (pots and kettles, and all that), but when there are so many existing choices out there, I'm curious to know: what itch are you trying to scratch that no published set can reach?"

Sorry – I don't get how to use the quotes function.

Well, its probably more about the way I process information than anything. I have been influenced by many familiar rules, but for some reason, none of them have sunk in for me. I played with whatever rules my mates liked, but I was always the one who had to reread things. Now my friends are gone and I am an elderly solo player. I want to have rules that are so intuitive for me that I barely have to refer to anything in writing. But simple without giving up on the historical aspect too much.

And I have been fascinated by Horse & Musket combat results. I have wondered if there was a bit more running away, falling back, etc. than many rules allowed for. I know men were stationed to help prevent routing, but that seems to indicate that fighting cohesion was suspect. The French order to disperse is not in most rules.

What really happened in some of these battles? Many of the eyewitnesses embellished their accounts and I do not trust them. I am pretty sure I would have run! I want to have a realistic sub set of easy rules about routing, rallying, etc. that is historical and logical to me.

Musketballs, just amazing is all I can say – and thanks.

Von Winterfeldt, I am not looking at just one army. They all had to fight each other and I think they became more similar in their tactics as the wars went on. But you are clearly much better read than I am and have thought a lot of things through.

Thanks to you all for pointing the way, whether you all agree or not. It seems clear that it is not likely one will find a single handle volume that is without some controversy. I will just have to dive in! Much obliged!

Hi Tortorella,

Our Friend Von Winterfeldt, gave some good recommandations – COLIN, RENARD, GEROME, (very) worth a reading to get a large panorama on the period.

Renard for example will give you an insight on more than just the French. You might want to start with COLIN .. the "plus" imho is that those authors are available on google books / gallica for free. so good trip !!

ps : for a *global point of view* you have Suasso/deFonseca > The theory of the infantry movements, by the author of 'The British drill'. the link to the volume with the plates
there are others volumes with the text(s)

Plates
link

vol 1
link

vol 2
link

Thanks to HK for sharing all those titles ; )

best regards

I agree with the good Cdr Luppo, start with Renard, he is by no means only covering the French but the Austrians and Prussians for example as well, also Grived and Grouard are not only French centered and give good other insides as well.

Otherwise yes, a solid reference to capture all those tactics and grand tactics is not available, but who should write it to cover only the major armies?

I disagree that memoires and after action reports are useless, one is learning shocking news much in disregard to the usual wisdom.

just a short glimpse and how complicated the whole topic is

Valentini : Die Lehre vom Krieg. Erster Theil. Der kleine Krieg und die Gefechtslehre, 4. Auflage, Leipzig 1820

§ 52.
Die im 45sten §. Gegebene Regel, daß Infanterie nie auf eine größere Distanz als auf dreihundert Schritt feuern muß ist überhaupt nicht auf Schützen auszudehnen. (…) Was will man ferner gegen einen Feind thun, der, wie die Franzosen im Revolutionskriege, auf fünf- bis sechshundert Schritt auf uns feuert, und uns Leute blessiert, wenn das Terrain nicht erlaubt, im näher zu rücken."
Seite 77 ff.
Those in § 45 issued rule that infantry mustn't never fire at a longer distance than of 300 paces, is never applied to skirmishers. (…) What can be done against an enemy, who, like the French in the Revolutionary Wars, fires at us from five – to 600 paces, and wounds our men, when the terrain doesn't allow us to approach him closer.

Jany, Curt : Die Gefechtsausbildung der Preußischen Infanterie von 1806. Mit einer Auswahl von Gefechtsberichten.
Urkundliche Beiträge und Forschungen zur Geschichte des Preußischen Heeres.
Herausgegeben vom Großen Generalstabe, Kriegsgeschichtliche Abtheilung II.
Fünftes Heft
Berlin 1903
18. Ein Preußischer Jägeroffizier Leutnant von Seydlitz, später Yorks Adjutant und bekannt als Herausgeber des Tagebuchs des Yorkschen Korps von 1812, berichtet 1808 das „die französischen Tirailleurs schon auf 1600 Schritt blessierten." Ferner : „Die Belagerung von Danzig giebt als Beispiel, daß Jäger ohne Bajonett eine Schanze weggenommen und keine Blessierten hatten, und ihe Repli, Linieninfanterie mit Bajonett, was 1500 Schritt hinter ihnen stand, dazu eine Menge hatte." (…)
S. 103
Footnote 18
A Prussian Jäger officer, lieutennat von Seydlitz, later ADC of York and famous as editor of the diary of York‘s corps in 1812, reported 1808, that ; "the French tirailleurs wounded already at 1600 paces." Also : "The siege of Danzig shows as example that Jäger without bayonet took a redoubt without any wounded and their support, line infantry with bayonets, who stood 1500 behind had many of them."
„Zahlreiche Schilderungen erwähnen besonders die „Bogenschüsse" der feindlichen Tirailleurs auf Entfernungen auf denen mit gezielten Schuß gar nicht zu denken war. Gneisenau erwähnt in einem Bericht an dem König vom 27. Februar 1807 als eine Erfahrung, die ermit einer Füsilier-Kompagnie bei Saalfeld gemacht habe, daß diese ungezielten Bogenschüße „zwar selten treffen, aber doch durch ihre Menge Viele, obgleich nicht gefährlich verwunden und immer unsere Leute unruhig machen."
S. 39
Numerous reports especially take note of the „arc shots" of the enemy tirailleurs at a distance whereupon it wasn't even to imagine of aimed shots. Gneisenau mentions in a report to the king, at the 27th of February 1807 as an experience, which he made with a company of fusiliers at Saalfeld, "that those unaimed arc shoots : rarely hit, but by their sheer numbers wounded many, though not seriously and made our man nervous."
„Ein Veteran des Siebenjährigen Krieges, General v. Tempelhoff, bemerkt darüber ; „Man feuert bei einer Schlacht ganz anders, als auf dem Exerzierplatze; denn die anrückende Infanterie fängt trotz allem dem, was ihr auf dem Exerzierplatze gelehrt und eingeprägt wird, oft schon auf 800 Schritt vom Feinde an zu feuern; doch wenigstens 600. Gewöhnlich glaubt man, daß ein solches Feuer nichts thut, allein hierin irrt man sich. Eine Kugel aus dem kleinen Gewehr tödtet oder verwundet einen Mann, wenn sie ihn nur trifft, ebenso gut, sie mag in einem Bogen oder horizontal abgeschossen werden,
S. 38 ff.

A veteran of the Seven Years War, General v. Tempelhoff remarks about that : One is firing at a battle totally difference compared to the drill ground, as the advancing infantry opens fire, regardless what being taught and drilled on the drill ground, already at 800 paces distance of the enemy – or at least at 600. It is the common believe that such a fire doesn't harm, however this is an error. A ball from the small arm, kills or wounds a men, in case it is hitting, as well as it is shot in an arc or horizontally.

Titze, Jörg : Die Berichte der sächsischen Truppen aus dem Feldzug 1806 (I) – Brigade Bevilaqua, books on demand 2014

Bericht Artillerieoffizier – Premierlieutenant v. Hiller
S. 93 ff
Eine große Intervalle, zwischen dem Regiment Churfürst und Xavier nunmehr zu schließen, zog sich das Regiment Churfürst rechts, bei welchen, so wie von den Vorrück an, wir immer von leichter Infanterie beschoßen wurden. Sie verwundeten mir auf die Weite von 7 bis 800 Schritt Leute, waren hinter Hecken und Zäune postiert, wo ich ihnen keinen Abbruch thun konnte mit Cartäschenschüßen deren ich einige mit großer Elevation versuchte, nicht die geringste Wirkung aber verspührte.
(Gecht bei Saalfeld)
S. 95
Here the observations oft he artillery officer von Hiller who commanded the regimental artillery of regiment von Churfürst, at the clash at Saalfeld
To close a big gap between the regiment Churfürst and Xavier, the regiment Churfürst was drawing itself to the right, by that as also in the advance we were always under fire from light infantry. They wounded me men at a distance of 7 to 800 paces, where placed behind hedges and fences, where I couldn't do any harm with grape shots, which I tried to use with high elevation but didn't feel the slightest effect.

This is very interesting material, the French seemed to be in open order much more than I realized. Thank you Cdr Luppo as well. I should not be surprised at the number of you who have looked at primary source documents. A learned bunch, indeed.

I do not under-value battle reports so much as I do memoirs but I withdraw my observation in any case because I have realized how deficient my reading on all of this has been. Basically, I don't know what I am talking about and need to explore more sources as so many of you have done! And I think also that there may be no absolute answers to my questions in any case!

If you want to have an idea of what actually went on, try Clausewitz, Jomini and Ardent du Piqu. The first two for the actual flow of campaigns and battles (although C and J disagree on mass vs manouvre) and the latter for what it is like having people shoot at you.

I have yet to find a set of rules which easily models why you would deploy in the manner described as obvious (two lines of infantry) by Clausewitz, nor one which puts any great emphasis on winning the pursuit battle. In both cases the minor evolutions and tactics of individual battalions and squadrons are irrelevant to the outcome, it is all about mass at the critical point.

@mr

Kriegspiel – broken troops rout miles if not backed by supporting line, otherwise they may attempt a rally.

A situational rule rather than an explicit +2 for posessing supports.

It makes you split-up your Russian Light battery between the the jaeger line and the third infantry line.

Yes, Kriegsspiel is a good idea – the only rules I know which force you to deploy your units in historical tactical fashion, or you pay the prize, in case you don't guard your artillery – it will be taken.

Clausewitz is an excellent historian, as he was a soldier who had commanded troops in combat and he was also an excellent staff officer.

Jomini was neither. He was a failed staff officer as a corps chief of staff and military governor (twice). He was also a deserter and a renegade. He was one of those who wore a uniform for years and was never actually a soldier. He never led or commanded troops.

Ardant du Picq is a terrible reference for the period 1792-1815 and some of his ideas were, at the very least, impracticle on a European battlefield.

Clausewitz is a credible witness and author. The latter two are not.

The best comment on being shot at was undoubtedly the comment by Winston Churchill: the greatest feeling in the world is being shot at and missed (paraphrase).

Kevin,

I agree that George Nafziger's "Imperial Bayonets" is superior to many other books on tactics.

However, as with all books, there are a few errors in it. He ignores the British "Quickest Step" of 120 paces per minute, which therefore distorts his National comparisons.

He also mentions the "Concertina" effect of units bunching then spreading out, but all Nations had drills to avoid that, or certainly militate against it, by using appropriate frontages and spacing between sub-units.

He also says he could not find any Russian manuals, so he used one from 1837, however since Imperial Bayonets was published all of the Russian Napoleonic era manuals have become available, mainly due to Alexander Zmodikov.

Rod

Rod,

I have yet to find a book on military history without errors in it. The best ones have the fewest errors.

The 'concertina' effect is usually called the 'accordian' effect in the US Marine Corps and US Army. And it did happen on long marches then as now.

Agree completely on the work of the Zhmodikovs'.

K

A new edition of Imperial Bayonets in paperback is coming out in July. I have Kriegsspiel rules from Too Fat Lardies, the 1828 addition, I think. I had forgotten about them.

Elting's Chapter is an overview of the French army and did not answer all my questions, but it is very readable.

Another one I've not seen mentioned here is George Jeffries book on Napoleonic Grand tactics. Good on the different tactical systems of the different nations

Yes – useful book, and the Late George Jeffries ascribed French Grand Tactical Success to their use of the moving pivot (versus fixed), the adjutants walk (versus cabinet-drawer), and also the brigade closed column (of battalions on grand-division-width) during the approach to start-line.

I remember George Jeffries, with whom I had lengthy discussions when I showed him that for example the Austrians had a moving pivot es well, and like the Prussians very well the adjutants walk, Adjutanten Aufmarsch.

Elting is creating wide sweeps and not that useful at all about the French, in case a much much better read would be

Foucart : La Campagnde de Prusse, (Prenzlow – Lübeck)

p. 905 pp Ètat – majpr général – Partie topographique – etc.

Foucart : Campagne de Pologne (Pultusk et Golymin)

375 pp de la Cavallerie ( a very detailed look into it)
445 pp Du Combat de L'Infanterie
463 Des Manoeuvres

Those chapters are providing a good basic knowledge, for links of those books go to the usefull stuff thread.

if that may help ..

Campagne de Pologne :

link

Campagne de Prusse :

link

best regards

; )