Napoleonic Tactics(Sorry about not being about WW2)

[EasyWay91]

Hello everyone! This time I'm not talking about the 20th century, which is what I specialize in. I'm trying to understand late 18th century warfare up to the mid 19th century. So how were these early modern wars fought? Any of you know anything on this particular era? I know about line infantry, cavalry, artillery, skirmishers, grenadiers, etc...

1. Does anyone know the difference between skirmishers and light infantry? I think they're the same but some books I've read say they're not.

2. How were Napoleonic battles fought and won? Were the battles very attritious, simply using men like cannon fodder?

[Akalonor]

isnt there a history section ?

[cephalos]

Firstly, you must know that Napoleon had thousands of "volunteers" . Service by requirement, or death as contr-revolutionist. Remember, that France in years 1789-1815 was Republic, and many people liked the new government. There was no King, no nobles, everybody were equal ( somehow). With this kind of thinking it was obvious, that they will fight for Revolution, which gives them rights they deserved. Morover, in French army EVERYBODY could become officer or even general.
That's why French soliders had very high morale.
---
Fighting tactics was very simple. Due to having thousands of poorly trained conscripts, French tactics was similiar to Soviet one, OVERWHELM. I'll try to describe:

ONE big unit of line infantry was hidden behind some kind of obstacle (house, hill, trees,and so on) and one unit was spreaded (skirmishers). Skirmishers were engaging enemy ( and were harder to hit) while this big unit was getting close enouh to launch an assault. Simple, and effective.
1. Skirmishers were armed mostly with carabines - they allowed shooter to lay down and shoot, However it's range was shorter than musket, which was main line's infantry weapon. There were also elite Guards, whose training, experience and furious assaults were famous in French army.
2. Napoleon was an artilery general, so it was obvious that he will use artilery. But he knew that victory lies in destroying enemy, not winning the battles, so often victory was obvious before battle. His army was spreaded to Corps, each lead by
marshall. Every corps had it's own artilery, cavalry, and so on - like little army. If corps was attacked, he could hold on until other corp will come nad support it. Also feeding 10 corps of 10.000 people was easier than feeding one army of 100.000.
During the battles Napoleon tried to destroy and cut down enemy army. He used tricks or desinformation to achieve victory. For instance he faked retreat to break enemy's lines and launched counter-attack. But since 1809 and battle of Wagram his tactics become more brutal. He had hundreds of thousands of volunteers, he he didn't care about losses, so battles turned to meat-grinders for both sides.

I hope I helped. If you need anything more, just write

[EasyWay91]

Thanks for the very informative writing. By the battle in which Napoleon retreated and counter-attacked, did you by chance mean the Battle of Austerlitz? So anyway is light infantry the same as skirmishers, some say light infantry are used as a fast reaction force, others say its just another word for skirmisher.

[Red_Stinger]

Firstly, you must know that Napoleon had thousands of "volunteers" . Service by requirement, or death as contr-revolutionist. Remember, that France in years 1789-1815 was Republic, and many people liked the new government. There was no King, no nobles, everybody were equal ( somehow). With this kind of thinking it was obvious, that they will fight for Revolution, which gives them rights they deserved. Morover, in French army EVERYBODY could become officer or even general.
That's why French soliders had very high morale.
---
Fighting tactics was very simple. Due to having thousands of poorly trained conscripts, French tactics was similiar to Soviet one, OVERWHELM. I'll try to describe:

ONE big unit of line infantry was hidden behind some kind of obstacle (house, hill, trees,and so on) and one unit was spreaded (skirmishers). Skirmishers were engaging enemy ( and were harder to hit) while this big unit was getting close enouh to launch an assault. Simple, and effective.
1. Skirmishers were armed mostly with carabines - they allowed shooter to lay down and shoot, However it's range was shorter than musket, which was main line's infantry weapon. There were also elite Guards, whose training, experience and furious assaults were famous in French army.
2. Napoleon was an artilery general, so it was obvious that he will use artilery. But he knew that victory lies in destroying enemy, not winning the battles, so often victory was obvious before battle. His army was spreaded to Corps, each lead by
marshall. Every corps had it's own artilery, cavalry, and so on - like little army. If corps was attacked, he could hold on until other corp will come nad support it. Also feeding 10 corps of 10.000 people was easier than feeding one army of 100.000.
During the battles Napoleon tried to destroy and cut down enemy army. He used tricks or desinformation to achieve victory. For instance he faked retreat to break enemy's lines and launched counter-attack. But since 1809 and battle of Wagram his tactics become more brutal. He had hundreds of thousands of volunteers, he he didn't care about losses, so battles turned to meat-grinders for both sides.

I hope I helped. If you need anything more, just write

France wasnt a real Republic. There was in few years many form of governments (during 1789-1792 France was a kind of constitutionnal monarchy, during 1792-1804 it was a kind a republic). French ''republican'' soldiers had very high moral as you said, because they were all volunteers. I will not describe this period more deeper because its really a hard work, but thats the very simple basis.

For the tactics: ahah again soviets are an army of countless vodka-smelling conscript lol 

Seriously, in my opinion tactics of napoleonic era wasnt that simple! And if republican soldiers of 1789-1799 era were "ill-trained", napoleon's soldiers were actually well-trained soldiers ( I mean, french soldiers, not foreigners "volunteers" ). And french guards were highly skilled, battle-hardened and loyal veteran unit. There were french legendary counterpart of russian guards unit and others elite forces of others armies.

EasyWay91,

1) I am not sure of that, here his my opinion: skirmishers were generally non-military unit (hunters, and rangers in america and cossack-like unit for polish/ukrainians/russians army). They werent especially trained, because they already know how to harass ennemy's forces. They werent very used in the battlefield, because of there low moral/loyalty and organisation, but were used to attack ennemy patrolls, scouts, supply etc. 

Light infantry were specifically trained infantry, able to move quickly and keep their formation and coherence, and to shoot and quickly retreat behind cover or line infantry. They were issued with high quality musket and lately rifles to enhence their shooting skills. Their task was to shoot down ennemy officer, flag-bearers and other important dude to provoke confusion in ennemy's line, and to make them an easy target for grenadier (shock troops) and cavalry, or to force them to rout over the battlefield under heavy artillery fire (line infantry, without officers, cannot do anything, and is very likely to retreat under even light losses, only the prussian infantry was able to hold and riposte due to their very high and deep training). But these light unit were particularly bad in close-combat situation with other infantry and especially cavalry.
 
2) If you already know the use of different units of the army in this era, thats good enough. Because all armies were similar in most aspect. The difference was made by generals! And Napoleons was able to organize entire battles, to surprise ennemy generals, to deceive them, to engage their force at decisive moment with elite troops, and to broke them with artillery (Austerlitz is a good example of one of Napoleon's strategies). More important he kept in mind the importance of supply, and had a very good supply system, made for corps rather than armies (his retreat in Russia is partly due to the abandon of this supply system). He was also able to see when he can engage the fight and when he can NOT engage combat. He had a great understanding of strategies and army's capability. But as cephalos said, battle were meat-grinder, but not because infantry were used as cannon-fodder in my opinion; because in the napoleonics era range weapon became more and more effective, and close-combat outcome were decided by infantry's moral rather than skills. Also, numerous soldiers were killed during their retreat by cavalry or artillery. And dont forget that a great number of soldiers died of illness.

Again thats the very basis of 18th and early 19th battles. You should see on Wikipedia for this kind of information, because in this case most of battles are well-detailled, and there is a lot of good link (at least in french wikipedia  )

[cephalos]

Firstly, you must know that Napoleon had thousands of "volunteers" . Service by requirement, or death as contr-revolutionist. Remember, that France in years 1789-1815 was Republic, and many people liked the new government. There was no King, no nobles, everybody were equal ( somehow). With this kind of thinking it was obvious, that they will fight for Revolution, which gives them rights they deserved. Morover, in French army EVERYBODY could become officer or even general.
That's why French soliders had very high morale.
---
Fighting tactics was very simple. Due to having thousands of poorly trained conscripts, French tactics was similiar to Soviet one, OVERWHELM. I'll try to describe:

ONE big unit of line infantry was hidden behind some kind of obstacle (house, hill, trees,and so on) and one unit was spreaded (skirmishers). Skirmishers were engaging enemy ( and were harder to hit) while this big unit was getting close enouh to launch an assault. Simple, and effective.
1. Skirmishers were armed mostly with carabines - they allowed shooter to lay down and shoot, However it's range was shorter than musket, which was main line's infantry weapon. There were also elite Guards, whose training, experience and furious assaults were famous in French army.
2. Napoleon was an artilery general, so it was obvious that he will use artilery. But he knew that victory lies in destroying enemy, not winning the battles, so often victory was obvious before battle. His army was spreaded to Corps, each lead by
marshall. Every corps had it's own artilery, cavalry, and so on - like little army. If corps was attacked, he could hold on until other corp will come nad support it. Also feeding 10 corps of 10.000 people was easier than feeding one army of 100.000.
During the battles Napoleon tried to destroy and cut down enemy army. He used tricks or desinformation to achieve victory. For instance he faked retreat to break enemy's lines and launched counter-attack. But since 1809 and battle of Wagram his tactics become more brutal. He had hundreds of thousands of volunteers, he he didn't care about losses, so battles turned to meat-grinders for both sides.

I hope I helped. If you need anything more, just write

France wasnt a real Republic. There was in few years many form of governments (during 1789-1792 France was a kind of constitutionnal monarchy, during 1792-1804 it was a kind a republic). French ''republican'' soldiers had very high moral as you said, because they were all volunteers. I will not describe this period more deeper because its really a hard work, but thats the very simple basis.

OMG, what a mistake  my history teacher wuld kill me 

Red_Stinger is right, except one thing. Armies weren't so similiar. British Empiere had platoon firin tactics, Prussian army was incredible with it's fire and move tactics, and russians... well, I don't know anything about russians

[EasyWay91]

I heard Russian cavalry was very good. There troops were always ready to fight, most were slaves, indentured servants, conscripts,etc... Russian melee I heard was just breathtaking, I don't know about that though.
Post Merge: August 08, 2010, 03:14:18 AMOh yeah the Russians had General Suvorov, who never let his troops retreat, had a very long victory streak, and used conscripts to protect his flanks.

[Seeme]

And they still used a lot of that tactic in WW2, no wonder they were losing at the beginning.

[HyperSniper999]

Different nations used their soldiers differently. In Napoleonic France's army, all infantry were trained to aim at their targets, even while in line formation, but the troops could also switch into irregular formations at any time. Napoleon also preferred muskets over rifles because of the faster reload time. Napoleon did have "Chasseurs a Pied" or Hunters of Foot that acted like specialized light infantry. Great Britain and Austria, meanwhile, preferred specialized light infantry units, and their line soldiers were only trained to fight in line drill. They also used riflemen. In Russia, Austria, Prussia, Britain, Spain and other allied powers were known for incompetent officers, especially Austria. Although there were a few very talented commanders (Suvorov, Radetzkey, Archduke Charles and Gebhard von Blucher just to name some). Towards the end of the Wars, some nations like Prussia began to adopt tactics similar to Napoleon, like mass conscription, and mass light infantry tactics.

[loatty]

My knowledge of the Napoleonic warfare isn't that great, but first of all:
The French soldiers were both volunteers and conscripts, Napoleon invented the conscription.
Napoleon also made great use of the 'divide and conquer' tactics; during the battle of Waterloo, he tried to split up the allied forces and eliminate them bit by bit; however, he failed.
Napoleon did not just name anyone general, but he did awarded many of his officer's the honorary rank of Field Marshall, which included a lot of privileges for those chosen.
Also, Napoleon made great use of artillery, and always worked to maintain a high morale and an overall advantage during battles (although there are also enough stories of Napoleon completely failing to gather the needed Intel about his enemy's, thereby risking the life's of his men unnecessary).

All together: Napoleon was an great tactician with revolutionary ideas, but eventually lost due to his desire to conquer everything he saw.