Widowson | 16 Apr 2021 11:39 a.m. PST |
I have only a passing interest in this subject, but something I read recently did pique my curiosity. Generally, British Foot "Guards" were significantly inferior in quality to British line infantry units, owing to the fact that they so rarely saw action, were not "promoted" into the guard establishment. I would expect that in the Peninsula they would have gained enough combat experience that they would have come "up" to the standard of the line, but certainly no further. I've read that in 1814 most of the British army was disbanded for cost savings, so that the 1815 army was mostly reconstituted from scratch. So I would expect the "Guard" infantry units would have devolved back to their inferior status as combat units. I'm sure this will initiate great discussion. I'm not trying to disrespect British Guards in any way, just address a subject that I came across in casual reading. |
Musketballs | 16 Apr 2021 2:11 p.m. PST |
British Foot Guards enjoyed a couple of benefits over the ordinary line units. They had the usual Royal Guard roles to perform and were de facto the military garrison of London – occasionally sent out to thump rioters skulls. Because of this they traditionally did not serve 'East of Suez', and could be pretty much guaranteed to avoid a West Indies garrison gig. The prestige of the guard role and benefits paid off in recruiting terms – Guard battalions were far more likely to be close to (or even over) establishment strength than line units, and could be a bit more choosy over who they took (or kept). However, when war came, the Guards battalions were infantry units and treated no differently than any other. They had no pampered last-ditch reserve role, but simply formed brigades that did ordinary brigade things. They fought their fair share in every major war from the Restoration onwards. During the Revolutionary & Napoleonic Wars the Guards served in Flanders in both 1793-94 and 1799, in Egypt in 1800, Copenhagen in 1807, Corunna 1809 and also in Walcheren. Detachments from the Guards stationed in Britain were also frequently part of the various amphibious attacks that Britain made (with varying degrees of success) on the coasts of France, Spain and Belgium. I'm not sure they needed service with Wellington to 'come up' to the standard of the ordinary line. It's worth noting that somewhere in Wellington's Despatches (1811 maybe – I'll try to find it), there's an order in which Wellington excuses the 1st Divisions Brigade of Guards from having to witness an execution – because their conduct has been so good that they clearly don't need to see an example being set. |
Musketballs | 16 Apr 2021 3:08 p.m. PST |
Got it: Supplementary Dispatches Vol 7 link |
Korvessa | 16 Apr 2021 3:26 p.m. PST |
just a brief comment o Guards. I find it interesting that for the British, the foot guards were regular combat troops but the horse guards were seldom employed. Whereas for the French – generally speaking – the guard cavalry was employed more often than the guard infantry. |
robert piepenbrink | 16 Apr 2021 8:40 p.m. PST |
Why are you putting Guards in quotes, Widowson? These are the people outside the palace, and it's part of the name. If you feel they weren't up to your own high standards, I can suggest several other candidates. Half-trained and malnourished French conscripts come immediately to mind. Among other advantages, higher pay lets recruiters be more selective. Usually British Foot Guards have a taller minimum height, which in the 18th and 19th Centuries is a pretty good measure of overall health. And very senior units are the last ones disbanded, so those Guard battalions at Waterloo are hardly recently raised. I would be curious where in your "casual" reading you came across the notion of them being usually inferior to the line in training, discipline, equipment or morale. I have never seen such a reference to the "Gentlemen's Sons" in the Napoleonic period or the AWI, and in the World Wars their performance was exemplary and sometimes legendary. Not people I'd care to be fighting against, myself. |
rmaker | 16 Apr 2021 10:21 p.m. PST |
the horse guards were seldom employed Not so. The Life Guards and the Blues served in the Peninsula and at Waterloo. If you want to talk about Guards units that probably weren't any better than the line, look at the Prussians. The Erste was only elevated out of the line in 1810, and the Zweite was raised that year. And personnel-wise, they were made up of the cantonists of the area surrounding the palace – the kingdom-wide recruiting only came in in the 1820's. |
Green Tiger | 16 Apr 2021 10:24 p.m. PST |
Generally, British Foot "Guards" were significantly inferior in quality to British line infantry units, owing to the fact that they so rarely saw action, were not "promoted" into the guard establishment. No – None of this is correct. They were top notch, generally kept at full strength, got the pick of recruits, were well trained and saw plenty of action. In short they were second to none. |
Martin Rapier | 17 Apr 2021 1:30 a.m. PST |
Tbh, I dont really know where to start with this one. |
Chad47 | 17 Apr 2021 1:45 a.m. PST |
The Guards in 1793-95 consisted of 3 Service battalions dawn from each regiment. They were all well below full strength averaging about 600 men per battalion. This included a Combined Grenadier battalion comprising 2 companies from 1st Guards and 1 each from 2nd and 3rd Guards. Fortescue gives a good background to the state of the British military establishment in 1793 and his analysis suggests that the Guards were not A great deal better than the line at that time |
ConnaughtRanger | 17 Apr 2021 1:49 a.m. PST |
Reads like cl****ait to me – there hasn't been a good old TMP Brit-bashing thread for a while? |
von Winterfeldt | 17 Apr 2021 4:12 a.m. PST |
I was always under the impression that the line regiments in the French Army of 1805 – 07 were much better than their French Guards. |
nsolomon99 | 17 Apr 2021 4:51 a.m. PST |
Frankly everything in the original post is utter nonsense and even a passing scan of the history of the Peninsula War would quickly reveal that. Read some Orders of Battle and then some battle reports. Doesn't really bear any further elaboration. |
Korvessa | 17 Apr 2021 10:34 a.m. PST |
rmaker Wouldn't you call two campaigns in 20 years "seldom?" I am no expert, but I still believe the British tended to use their foot guards in battle more than the horse, whereas the French tended to commit the horse guards more than the foot guards. |
Dexter Ward | 17 Apr 2021 10:58 a.m. PST |
In the 1814 campaign in France, Napoleon used pretty much nothing but the guard. British guard units, both foot and horse, fought with distinction in the Napoleonic wars. |
IronDuke596 | 17 Apr 2021 11:55 a.m. PST |
+1 nsolomon99. @ Chad47 you are referring to pre-napoleonic period, which is not applicable to the original query. @ Martin Rapier, I felt that way too initially. |
4th Cuirassier | 17 Apr 2021 1:57 p.m. PST |
The OP betrays a fairly substantial misunderstanding of how the Guards worked. The three regiments of Guards were administrative bodies with a headquarters covering all companies (Line regiments commonly organised around the standing battalion). From their pool of companies, the Guards generated battalions as required for field service. These did not have to be the standard ten companies, because Guards regiments often company numbers in excess of that. The 1st for example had as many as 32 companies, which meant it could generate a battalion of more than 10 companies or a 10-company battalion with more than one light company. They had so little difficulty recruiting that they were able to generate multiple 1,000-man battalions for field service while still having not just cadres but full-size battalion equivalents in barracks for the ceremonial stuff. They were overstrength to the point where tactically they had to be split into two wings of 500-550 men. They fought in seven campaigns between 1793 and 1815. Wellington regarded them as the best troops in his 1815 army, which is why he gave them Hougoumont to defend, and the Chasseurs of the Guard to rout. Their numbers were brought up to strength on the eve of the 100 Days by 600 men of the Berkshire militia. This says much about the quality of British militia, but it also tells you how anxious men were to get into the Guards. The nearest French parallel to them might be the Young Guard, in that they received the best of the recruits, but the Foot Guards enjoyed several advantages. First, they were all volunteers, not conscripts; second, they had extensive campaign experience; third, they received regular transfers of fully trained men unlike the Young Guard; and fourth and relatedly, there was never any problem keeping their numbers up. I'm puzzled at the origin of the idea that they weren't as good as line. Offhand, I can't think of anyone in this era who ever bested them, which along with the Guard Lancers would make them part of a club with two members. |
4th Cuirassier | 17 Apr 2021 2:01 p.m. PST |
@ Korvessa Probably the reason why the Guard cavalry were less frequently employed was that there weren't that many occasions when cavalry could be; and that the main factor determining cavalry quality in the British army was quality of mount. As all were equally well mounted, I doubt there'd have been much to choose between heavy dragoon, Dragoon Guard, Royal Horse Guard and Life Guard. The two latter were notably weaker in numbers than the others though. A heavy dragoon regiment not uncommonly had 10 troops of 90 men; the Blues had six of about 60. |
Musketballs | 17 Apr 2021 2:14 p.m. PST |
And some thoughts on the second part of Widowson's question – on most of the British Army in 1815 being reconstituted from scratch. True that after the initial peace of 1814, the swollen wartime army was slimmed down. Cavalry regiments were reduced to a peacetime establishment of 3 squadrons. A number of the wartime foreign regiments were disbanded. A large number of the field-service 2nd battalions that had been raised for British regiments were disbanded into the 1st battalions. And supporting arms were reduced to a level commensurate with the peacetime establishment. So how did Wellington end up with such a rag-bag…'an infamous army' as he called it when he first laid eyes on it? After peace broke out in 1814, the units in the best condition in Europe were sent off to the American War as fast as they could be shipped. Understrength units were returned to Britain to rebuild, usually to Ireland where they doubled up as garrison while rebuilding. The core of Wellington's army was the Auxiliary Corps maintained in the Netherlands during the Congress of Vienna. As this Corps was not intended to be long-lasting, it was thrown together from whatever was convenient. Most of the KGL was sent there to be absorbed into the new Hanoverian Army that was forming. The British force consisted of the units scraped together for the Northwest Europe commitment of 1813-1814. Most of this consisted of 2nd battalions that were due to be disbanded after the need for the Auxiliary Corps was over. The few 1st Battalions were so worn down that it wasn't considered worth sending them to America. The problem the British had in 1815 wasn't that the army had been disbanded, it was the the most effective infantry units were on the wrong side of the Atlantic. That, and a political imperative to keep a strong garrison in Ireland. Wellington received some important reinforcements from home straight away: Adam's Light Brigade had been due to be sent to America, but was still at Cork. Pack brought over whatever could be spared from the Irish garrison. For anything else, Wellington had to wait for troops to return from America – the strong ones were sent directly to him, weaker ones were sent to garrison to release stronger units for field-service. It's interesting to note that the Mississippi Expedition to New Orleans, usually remembered as a complete disaster, actually turned out to be a gilt-edged blessing for Wellington. Because the Expedition was totally 'afloat', it sailed directly back to Britain when peace was declared, and much arrived in time to play a crucial role at Waterloo. The larger army in Canada, however, which had to queue up for shipping and convoy, was not so useful. So, it's fair to say that Wellington had to build his army from scratch, but not really accurate that the British army had to be rebuilt from scratch. Wellington's cavalry and artillery at Waterloo were as good (if not better) than those he had in the Peninsula – it was just the infantry that was a problem. Even that was more a time problem than anything else – if hostilities had started two weeks later, Wellington would have been likely stronger to the tune of three or four veteran British infantry brigades and maybe an additional heavy cavalry brigade as well. Just some thoughts. |
Musketballs | 17 Apr 2021 2:37 p.m. PST |
Just a comment on the Lifeguard: The British Lifeguard was intended to be the personal bodyguard of the monarch in battle. When British kings stopped playing at General after the WAS, the Guard cavalry was slimmed down to a purely ceremonial role. It wasn't until just before the Revolutionary war that the numbers were increased to anything that looked like a viable combat unit, and it's probably not too cynical to suggest that the intent was more about policing London than fighting abroad. When the Household cavalry were finally sent overseas in 1813 and 1815, they were just another cavalry unit – same as the Foot Guards were just another infantry unit. |
robert piepenbrink | 17 Apr 2021 6:19 p.m. PST |
"they were just another cavalry unit – same as the Foot Guards were just another infantry unit." Yes, in the sense that they weren't a mixed-arms reserve corps. The British were still doing as all European states did before Napoleon amped up his "Imperial Guard" into just that, and the Russians followed suit. (I'm trying to remember who summed up the situation by saying the British monarch was a real king but only an amateur soldier, while Napoleon was the reverse.) But it didn't prevent some royal guards from being very good regiments. Oh. rmaker? By all means check me, but I believe you'll find that the Prussian 1st Guard Infantry had been designated guard from the 1807 reorganization. They were just taken out of the line numbering sequence in 1810. But Prussian guards under Frederick the Great had also been numbered in the line sequence. |
42flanker | 18 Apr 2021 1:27 a.m. PST |
@ 4th Cuirassier: "which is why he gave them Hougoumont to defend, and the Chasseurs of the Guard to rout." It's a small point, perhaps, but I am not sure the ultimate trajectory of the Chasseurs de la Garde was entirely in the Duke's gift. More to the point, I believe the sub-division of infantry battalions into 'wings,' with an additional Lieutenant Colonel to allow a degree of operational independence, was a measure introduced generally in 1793. |
Chad47 | 18 Apr 2021 2:44 a.m. PST |
Iron Duke Thanks for your obvious comment. My note was made in the context of the final sentence of the OP third paragraph to provide an earlier ( or pre-Napoleonic if you wish) view of the British Guards. |
Artilleryman | 18 Apr 2021 5:12 a.m. PST |
I wonder what Widowson's original source was? It has certainly generated a lot of discussion! |
4th Cuirassier | 18 Apr 2021 5:56 a.m. PST |
One point slightly in favour of the British Guards being less markedly better than Line compared to other armies is that unlike eg France, the British Guards were not formed by stripping all the best men from the Line. As a result, there was no process whereby you constantly reduced the quality of your Line units by forming and maintaining a Guard. The Line got to keep its best men. Of course, it follows that armies that did not loot the Line in this way, or had no Guard at all, would logically have had Line troops superior to those of armies that did. Austrian Line troops pitted against French were average quality troops facing units whose above-average elements had been removed. |
MightyOwl | 18 Apr 2021 6:01 a.m. PST |
The Austrians removed the grenadiers from their regiments and put them in converged battalions. So the best men in the regiments weren't present whereas the the French often did have the voltigeur and grenadier companies present. |
Bill N | 18 Apr 2021 8:04 a.m. PST |
In the early years the French guard recruitment practices probably had little effect on the quality of line troops. There were large numbers of men in the line regiments who had seen service under the Republic, and the Guard was relatively small. As for the British guard, in that time period disease, desertion, detachments and injuries on fatigue duty could sap a unit's strength as much as battles and campaigning. As an elite formation the British guards may have been less affected by these than ordinary line units. This would allow them to maintain their strength without resort to constant replacements that might have lowered their quality, or the quality of other regiments. |
Brechtel198 | 18 Apr 2021 8:34 a.m. PST |
What were the prerequisites for being accepted into the British Guards regiments? The Imperial Guard ceased to be an organization of veterans with the activation of Velites in the infantry regiments in 1804. The cavalry regiments and the artillery got them in 1805. As established, the Guard hierarchy functioned as a military school. In 1811 the Battalion of Instruction, actually three battalions, was activated at Fontainebleu and was used to train NCOs corporals of the Middle and Young Guard. Those who graduated were used as cadres for new line regiments. The Old Guard ran the school and its instructors were the pick of the Guard regiments and the military school of St Cyr. And it should be noted that the Young Guard was formed from picked conscripts, not from the line. |
Artilleryman | 18 Apr 2021 9:09 a.m. PST |
The Guards recruited in the same manner as other British regiments. However, they were more choosy about who they took. The standards imposed during training and maintained thereafter made the Guards the quality troops they were. They were by no means perfect but their actions justified their status. |
deadhead | 18 Apr 2021 10:49 a.m. PST |
The tie, to this day, is instantly recognisable. To my acute embarrassment I once (not that long ago) walked through HG Parade, wearing a maroon and navy blue striped tie (angled the UK way, not the US). My favourite colours. I was noticed by every chap in proper rig and got a look of puzzlement. I should have been wearing a bowler and carrying an umbrella, I think. I was even offered a concession when I paid to enter the RHG Museum….but I explained my faux pas. |
rmaker | 18 Apr 2021 12:10 p.m. PST |
The main reason that the Household Cavalry (and most of the rest of the British heavy cavalry) didn't see as much action as their French counterparts was logistical. Napoleon's army marched to its campaigns. The British army went by sea. Transporting mounted troops by sea was expensive both in money and in shipping space. Remember those WW1 French boxcars? 40 hommes ou 8 cheveaux? And the ratio gets worse for extended voyages. Add all the extra feed and, even more important, water needed and you could probably transport an entire infantry battalion in the shipping needed for one cavalry troop. Note that, for the Egyptian campaign, Napoleon only shipped 1200 horses (many of which were officers' mounts) for 2900 cavalry (none of them heavies) and 1800 artillery. And speaking of feed and water, central Spain wasn't well supplied with either. And several years of warfare hadn't improved the forage situation, either. It made little sense to send more than the bare minimum of cavalry to the Peninsula, and most of that lights, since scouting and screening were the cavalry's major duties. |
Unlucky General | 20 Apr 2021 12:46 p.m. PST |
I think there's only one comment I can add of any possible use to what has been so comprehensively answered and that's how they are represented in rule sets. Rule writers have an irresistible urge to make them special and all-powerful. I suggest that their morale rating should be above others – more from pride and expectations from the start of the period and maintained right up to 1815.As far as fighting prowess (shooting and melee)is concerned they should perhaps be equal to the best of the line (veteran status perhaps)but nothing super-human. I suggest their real advantages should be in command and maneuver also. |
ferg981 | 05 May 2021 1:33 p.m. PST |
He'll be telling us the Yanks won the War of 1812 next! Regards J |