This is our quick guide to Napoleonic infantry tactics, which first appeared in our Battle of Aspern video. I thought it might be useful to post it as its own video for those looking for a quick summary of the topic. I hope you find it interesting and look forward to heated debate on Napoleonic tactics... (For those seeking more detail on this topic, there's links to some good books in the video description, including those referenced for the making of this video. Rory Muir's book is particularly recommended). New Napoleon video out on Thursday - the Invasion of Russia.
Good video. One small pet peeve. For many videos now, you say "Voltigeur" with a hard "G". However, in French, it is pronounced "Voltijeur" (soft 'G'). See wikipedia pronunciation. And for "Pied" (the "D" is mute). Thank you!
Watched the Invasion of Russia video last night. Absolutely fantastic! You are coming on leaps and bounds, especially with the artwork, animation and battle maps! This tactics video is the icing on the cake!! Can't wait for Part 2 👍
Ok guys I'll try to explain in my poor english (I'm French) The debate between liners and columnists have been raging for years in those times. Germans under Friedrich the great invented the skewed order, keeping the line while maximizing firepower but required a lot of well drilled troops to be executed. Napoleon on his side prefered the mass formations as it was unpredictable for the ennemy to know where he will strike. The classic napoleonic order was the C line, or U formations. A deformed skewed order. The aim was to feint attacks by forming a C, and when the ennemy reacted suddenly forming a U to maximize firepower. The ennemy then ready tl attack suffers maximum losses while neighboring corps forms the C ready to mass themselves to exploit any breakthrough. In fact he resolved the question by remaining on line but flexible to quickly reform columns. This was helped by a well planned counteractions (cav, arty and chasseurs) to allow time for its troops to prepare those manoeuvres. But the main innovation was the corps d'armée (a little army by itself with its own guns and cav attached). Those were considerably more autonomous than the old regiment system, interarm operations were easier, that gave napoleonic armies much more both strategical and tactical advantages. But Napoleon was more a strategist than a tactician. His corps d'armée as brigades had the possibility to act as attacking or defending units independently according to their neighboor. The main victory key for Napoleon was the strategic quadilateral, each corps d'armée widespread on a region could rapidly reinforce another allowing more coverage of areas, better speed and as well better maneuvrability.
@@yc2673 your English is fine, some misspelled words but it's a long comment so that can be forgiven. Could you elaborate on the difference between a strategist and a tactician. I also find it interesting how combined arms warfare evolved over time. One thing I read about in ww1 was the advent of the Creeping Barrage where artillery was very well coordinated with the infantry and would keep a continuous bombardment while they advanced. How sophisticated was artillery in those days and how closely could they coordinate with other units. Like cavalry and infantry.
@@ieuanhunt552 Hello, The main difference between a tactician and a strategist consists in that the tactician is an operational genius, able to use its assets at best to win victories. The strategist will not focus on the operational ground rather than the whole campaign. His skill is to turn its victories decisive. For example, in ww2, Erwin Romel was a superior tactician while Montgommery a strategist. For the first world war, I can give you some elements on the strategic evolutions : 1- The german defense in depht was the most notable innovation, 3 lines, one to fight and leave, the second to hold, the third to reinforce and counterattack. The main idea was that ennemy artillery could not follow the advance of its troops and therefor the second line unbombarded was well organized to receive them while they didn't have the cover of their own artillery. It was decisive. But the French and British both counter reacts smartly. The British was to transform its infantry as an heavy infantry (with light machineguns) in a defensive purpose to block germans counterattacks while the offensive and breakthrough left to the tanks. The French on the other side focused on mobility with the most motorized army of the war. The trucks allowed the french artillery to moove quickly and to exerce a "rolling fire" disorganizing the German defense in depht. While breakthrough was always the purpose of infantry helped by light mobile tanks. Germans doctrine relied heavily on the train and ability to mass artillery and troops to create breakthrough while the French relied on a dispersed approach while rapidly mooving its artillery and troops by truck on chockpoints. I hoped I bring you something. Have a good day!
"Lines", "formations", "columns", "artillery", "cavalry", "manoeuvre", "division", "army", "lieutenant", "sergeant", "colonel", "general", "assault", "company", "marine", "canonnier", the whole military vocabulary of english language is made of french words.
@@cseijifja also France was a beast of a country for a long period of time. From the Middle Ages to the Napoleonic War, they're the ones that helped influence many battle tactics.
I'd say that applies to many of our words beyond just military vocabulary due to Norman influence following 1066. The language of nobility only really stopped being French during the Hundred Years War where more emphasis was put on establishing a more unique English identity.
I remember that in one battle, Napoleon's cavalry couldn't penetrate through the infantry so they decided to move back a little bit and let the cannon do the work so the infantry would scatter and the cavalry would be easier to pick them. They do this repeatedly
Using cavalry, or even the threat of cavalry, was a sound tactic to force the enemy into a square so the artillery could do their work. Only Wellington's unconventional order to lie down saved the Allied force from much greater casualties at Waterloo.
Great video. Something not mentioned here though, which played a huge role in Napoleonic infantry tactics, was that the Napoleonic wars--and the French Revolutionary wars that preceded them--were the first modern examples of mass conscription and mobilization in warfare. 18th Century battles were fought with small, professional armies, brutally drilled, and fought for relatively small exchanges of territory (in western Europe, at least). The Revolutionary wars were titanic struggles which were painted by bouth sides as having existential threats to the nations involved, especially France. Masses of raw recruits, patriotic volunteers, and fresh conscripts had to fight against these well-drilled professional units. It was actually the French who first used assault columns to break the thin lines of Allied infantry in battle, and this tactic proved successful enough that even Napoleon was doing the same with his elite Old Guard in the final charge at Waterloo. With tactics such as these, it's no surprise that Napoleonic era battles were far more decisive than those that came before--for better or for worse for the commanders using these tactics.
It's a good point - one can read accounts of Austrian and Prussian commanders facing the French in 1792 who are horrified by these waves of untrained but highly motivated French soldiers coming at them. Revolutionary warfare is particularly interesting, and there seems to an endless debate over how new it was (use of light infantry, loose order etc), and/or to what extent the French army still relied on its professional, ancien régime core (the guillotining of aristocrats is such a popular image of the Revolution, that many people are surprised by just how many aristocrats stayed in the army, or were allowed to return.) One can also understand a lot about warfare in this period simply by studying each country's development and implementation (or not) of conscription laws..
It's good you added "in western Europe, at least", because otherwise it would not have been true. Mass armies of conscripts and line infantry existed long before the French Revolution. Russia, Prussia and Austria had armies of tens of thousands or even more soldiers from conscription in the middle of 18th century or even earlier. This was one of the reasons of the demise of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, because she missed the time when big armies of line infantry from conscription started to being created. When the Commonwealth had an army of, say, 30 thousands of mainly cavarly, Russia, Prussia and Austria alread had armies close to 100 thousands or even more.
-Napoleonic Infantry Tactics Guide- How to be an Expert in Napoleon Total War Edit: looks like 1.2k People Agreed with Me and have Therefore Benefitted from this Video.
After watching this video, I read some Napoleon's tactics from campaigns prior to Waterloo and used it to beat my friends in a game of Age of Empires IV.
@@hidokun9145 imagine playing an inferior game of its series whose purpose is just to milk idiots like OP Whether it worked or not doesnt matter because he should have been playing ultimate general civil war instead
Invincible tactic in Total War (in my case Rome and Medieval II): -pikemen on the front and sides (and behind if needed) -masses of archers behind them Works every time against the AI (and often against human opponents too) with somewhat balanced armies. Same applies to defending villages (with 4 ways to the town square), but it's even easier because you need even fewer melee troops relative to archers. In this case you can beat an army that's like twice the size of your own.
@@kgsvvgla2i Very accurate! Can't say most people, but a lot of people don't care for formations and stances, but that's how they lose a fight most times. In AoE, when you order the spikemen to hold their positions, not a single horse can get through, it's the perfect counter to enemy cavalries, while they blocks the incoming charges, switch in the long range squadrons from the back to finish the job. Another thing is flanking, it matters a great deal in RTS games. Just like the scenario above, while all of this is happening, my reserved cavalry units have already flanked around out of view and charging the rear units, which in most cases are vulnerable long range units
Great video as always. The Napoleonic Era battles are really amazing, and many people adore this era's battles. However, I think that no one wishes to be a soldier in the armies of Napoleonic Era. Honestly, getting hit by a musket ball can be the worst thing ever in the world.
The quick summary has me ravenous for more. These videos are brilliant! I've never before been so intrigued by the Napoleonic era. Your work is tremendous sir! Bravo!
4:09 "Horses won't charge a solid wall of men" This is debated actually. While for the period it seems correct, there are cases where cavalry charges possibly did slam into walls of men in medieval and ancient times (again heavily debated). IMO it seems more likely that it had more to do with a fear of the musketfire than the refusal to slam into men, but I really want to explore the topic more. Great vid as always!
Lots of sources from the Napoleonic wars repeatedly state that charging horses would pull up a few meters just before hitting the square(or opposing charging cavalry), main benefit of multiple staggered battalion squares opposed to a single long battalion line is that the horseman will ride through any gaps they find, rather than engaging the squares themselves, one british (highlander i believe) says that when his square was surrounded by french cavalry, only a few braver horseman actually rode up close to hack at the square, the others stayed back, hoping to entice the infantry to fire their muskets with little effect before closing. The main effect of a heavy cavalry charge in any time period would be that the infantry would falter and turn their backs and run right before the cavalry charge hit home, thus the horses can pass in between them and there is no great impact, like at Waterloo also, the British heavy cavalry charge destroyed D'Erlons corps because it was just a packed group of men huddled together, the horses 'charged' at the trot and the french caught by surprise just turned and fled, only way a couple hundred horseman could move through thousands of tightly packed infantry.
I agree with you on that. Musket volleys are loud and produce heavy amounts of smoke. Horses can easily be startled by these factors for the time. As for the medieval ages, it would seem to be easier for a well trained warhorse to charge into a wall of spears and shields unless the defenders were disciplined themselves. Horses are capable of doing incredible feats as long as they are well fed and trained by their riders. There are many lose accounts of these feats. But I agree that it is still debatable.
I've talked to 2 people who have worked with horses their whole life about this and both of them said that horses are... well... pretty blunt in the head so you could train them to do almost anything. This is just circumstantial evidence on my part and they obviously haven't bred any war horses but I think the idea of "train them hard enough and they'll do it" is important.
@@HeyImLucious The point with that is you have to remember that theres a rider ontop as well, you may undoubtedly be able to ride a horse through a line of men, but will the rider want to surround himself with enemy infantry with 10 inch bayonets in his face
I don't get why it's still debatable. How do you explain the polish hussars charging at the muslims at vienna, or Alexandar the great breaking the persian lines etc. Cavalry charges into mass infantry formations just have to be real.
These tactics were still in use at the time of the American Civil War. They were being taught to cadets at West Point, The Citadel and VMI. American officers were steeped in Napoleonic tactics.
My understanding is that one of the reasons for the high casualty rates during the Civil War is that the generals were using Napoleonic tactics with relatively new weapons like rifled muskets and rifled cannon and, in some cases, Gatling Guns.
@user-xx7um5bh5w The main reason for keeping troops together in large bodies during Napoleonic (and Civil War) combat was to exercise tactical control in an age when radio communications did not exist. Couriers and had to hand deliver orders to junior officers and situational reports to commanding officers. That's difficult to do if your troops are strung out over the countryside. Innovations in weapons like rifle muskets and rifled artillery could start killing at distances Napoleonic era weapons could not.
This is true but the most successful generals of the Civil War (Jackson, Grant, Sherman) were the ones who abandoned the Napoleonic style and adapted to the modern technology.
@@賴志偉-d7h Since his innovations were copied by his ennemies throughout the wars, you can safely say that he influenced greatly the era in terms of military tactics. Of course he also used stuff from other people, but I believe it wasn't at the same scale.
Brilliant video! Nice illustrations, great audio (music, sound effects, etc.) I also really enjoy the subtitles, that I assume you at EHTV make. Thank you very much.
Watched the Invasion of Russia video last night. Absolutely fantastic! You are coming on leaps and bounds, especially with the artwork, animation and battle maps! This tactics video is the icing on the cake!! Can't wait for the Invasion of Russia Part 2 👍
What a pleasant surprise . Always interested in battle field tactics. Would you be interested in doing a 30 years war video series . Thanks will be epic
I would have never thought to concentrate line infantry, but it makes total sense for the wars Napoleon fought. Loose ranks minimize your casualties but they drag a battle out. Napoleon was getting dogged by five or six nations' armies for his entire career. He couldn't afford long battles, because reinforcements were always in his enemies' favour. He needed to fall on one army, tear them to pieces, and get back on the move fast, and casualties could be minimized with using higher quality troops that only improved their quality with every battle they experienced.
We can say that the skirmishers were using tactics that were quite advanced for their times because that's exactly how infantrymen fought in later eras.
@@lelouche25 Can't say I've ever seen it but good luck nonetheless. I'm planning on eventually attempting an A Song of Ice and Fire fanfic myself that I want to set in this period too, but I really need to do some more research first. Stuff like this is really helpful and easy to digest.
fantastic visuals and overall just a really good video. made me realize that military tactics are much more interesting then i had originally thought. i had always wondered why warfare was fought the way it was with such formations, im glad i finally found out. i own napolean total war, and this gave me a newfound appreciation for it.
A highly informative guide, giving all important factors of the subject in clear, precise manner using excellent computer graphics. A great tutorial for any budding Napoleonic wargamer, and not only for them either ! 🌟🌟🌟
This is a nice introduction into napoleonic wars tactics. To those who seek more details and facts about tactics of that era I highly recommend book "Battle Tactics of Napoleon and His Enemies" by Brent Nosworthy. It is by far the top 3 book about N tactics of all time. Just a little note of mine to this video about square formations. They of course could be broken and they were on many occasions. Experienced Cavalry formation could easily exploit just a little hole, gap in the square created by canister shots for an instance. Then they would charge directly into that gap and get inside of the square which always led to a total slaughter of the enemy. There were even occasions were a french heavy cavalry (Kellermann or d'Hautpoul) broke two squares with one charge! they broke one square and then charged into another one standing behind and breaking them into pieces. There were obviously other tactics for cavalry vs square developed during that era. But what really determined the outcome of this clash was the firmness of the square and the experience/bravado of charging cavalry. In percentages it is hard to estimate the success of cavalry breaking a square formation but I personally would put it to 10%. Here are some of the examples: -In 1812 at Kliastitzi, Russian Tambov Regiment awaited the cavalry. The French charged and received volley that emptied only "a few saddles". Before the infantry could reload their muskets the cavalry were upon them. The square was broken. -In 1813 in Dresden, Russian Grodno and Loubny Hussars broke square of 5th Voltigeurs of the Young Guard, killing, wounding and taking prisoner 310 guardsmen. The Grodno Hussars broke also another square of the Young Guard. (Source: Plotho - "Der Krieg" Vol II). [But in February 1813 in Kalish the Russian Alexandria Hussars were unable to break three weak Saxon grenadier companies !] - In May 1813 at Michelsdorf, 15 squadrons of Prussian cavalry> (Silesian Cuirassiers, East Prussian Cuirassiers, Silesian Uhlans and Guard Light Cavalry Regiment) attacked the French 16th Division. The Silesian cuirassiers crushed the partially formed French square, the East Prussian cuirassiers moved between Michelsdorf and Hainau, routing all formed bodies of infantry they found. The other cavalry units captured six guns and cut the gunners. The 16th Division broke and fled in a bloody rout to Michelsdorf.
I wrote a thesis on regulated vs unregulated brothels between the British / Wellington( regulated) and French / napoleon (unregulated). Syphilis took out tons of French line troops that he would have had at Waterloo. Just as timely as the Prussians entering the battle. Napoleons best logistics general was not present. Bad shoes also played a role.
I was in Coast Guard basic training and it's cool how we have battalions and companies. Obviously not for infantry combat, but to train close order drill.
One thing I learned from Rome total was was by this age calvary became way more situational than older times. In general you charge at the wrong time and your forces just get gunned down. Charge at a lone unit from the rear, routing units, or heavy rain were the only ideal conditions. Even artillery can defend itself well from calvary with well timed grape shots.
IRL, heavy rain was just a bad time for battles all around. A single horse can churn up the ground, but 200-600 at once? That basically leaves a quagmire wherever it goes! That mud makes it hard for the cavalry in the rear to keep formation; for the cavalry to pull back after the charge (I know you know cycle-charging works wonders); and for infantry to follow up the attack. That's on top of the issues of commanders seeing what the hell was going on, or relaying orders in the downpour. Basically, unless you had a truly elite fighting force that knew what to do down to muscle memory, it was best to wait for clearer conditions. You're absolutely right about cavalry not being used to charge the front of a formation however. Even in ancient times, that was risky and by the time muskets were the mainstay of armies, it was just suicidal. Amazing to think that some idiots were still trying that when machine guns were a thing...
Brutal but no where near as insane as modern warfare. Far fewer total casualties, shorter wars, and minimal civilian casualties. Settle things in a decisive battle like men!
Sorry but I don’t want to live on a time where casualties were high on both sides and you are just standing there looking at the guy pointing a gun directly at you.
@@rhysnichols8608 Lmao American losses in the Middle East are minimal whereas more than 500 000 soldiers died in the campaign of Russia ALONE. The Napoleonic Wars were extremely violent and murderous.
@Bass Slapper Yes they were lmao, you never heard about Carl von Clausewitz but you should read about him. You'll learn that a shift happened in warfares during the Napoleonic wars causing these conflicts to be way more violent than they were the last centuries. Also just how many times were the people conscripted to basically butcher each other up? WW1 had more casualties cuz guess what, after a century there was a demographic growth, in case you didn't know in the 1790's France had the largest population in Europe with less than 30 million people. And you're basically saying that warfares today are the same as in WW1 which is the dumbest shit I've ever heard.
Wow! All those years I was convinced that artillery's main purpose was to blast enemy infantry in small explosions, rather than tear through multiple columns like that. Too many video games, I suppose.
they didn't really have explosive shot as there were very unreliable (faulty fuses), dangerous for crews (faulty fuses), and more trouble then they were worth (faulty fuses). They would mostly use solid shot or grapeshot/canister shot (technically different shells which canister being metal shells being shot inside metal cans which broke when fired while grapeshot was shot with round shots being in canvas bags or held together by a coiled bar), or shrapnel shot (had a hollowed out center and filled with small round shots and then packed with a small amount of explosive power with a timed fuse which would explode while a few feet off the ground). There were though shells which were explosive, though they weren't fired by cannons but instead other artillery pieces such as howitzers
It's thanks to Hollywood (they set flashy fire explosions to go off when cannonballs hit). But yeah generally the balls bounce in a line taking out whatever is in there path,
Reminds me of that museum piece where the display says “from a wounded soldier” The chest piece has an entrance hole you could stick your head through and an exit larger. “Wounded”
I just started the video and low and behold, I see Austrian (actually Hungarian) infantry!!! Great start! Most ppl think the Napoleonic wars were just between France and Britain....probably because most of the English publications Americans read are from the British and they only get their biased point of view.
we've made a series of videos on the wars between France and Prussia, Austria and Russia. In fact this tactics guide first appeared in our video about Aspern-Essling.
Britain had always been a cherry picker ever since they lost Hundred Years War. After that all they can do is scheme, fund, patrol the sea and do some hit-and-runs. They can no longer bear the brunt of fighting like the continental European powers.
@@nomooon Yes, Britain funded the Russians, Prussians and Austrians throughout the Revolutionary wars and the Napoleonic wars. Because Britain did not have the manpower they had - or the autocratic regimes. But Britain did fight in the Peninsular War, with the Portuguese and Spanish - once the Spanish realised that they were on the losing side.
@@cliveburt2638 England fighted on continent only if they were sure to have their ships for retreat and when the battles of men arrived you prefered wait behind a high plain.
I disagree, all fusiliers can fight in open/extended order. A lot of times the company was formed up in 2 ranks in the french army as well as from 1791 frequently drill in 2 ranks, as the regulation states once a company was reduced below 12 files it was to be formed on 2 ranks. And right before the column charges the enemy the divisions would go close to each other, I think a few paces but I forgot. And this video should be titled more about close order French and Austrian infantry tactics on a battalion level.
Do you have source for your first sentence? Open order was considered the formation for elites. While fusiliers could be trained for this, the average soldier fought in line.
@@95DarkFire It was common for regular infantry to skirmish in small engagements, where line formations wouldnt make much sense. So it's assumable that when needed even in battle they could make them skirmish if the situation required that, commanders back then were mostly focused on practicality more than etiquette. Still i presume that in big battles it was more rare, the concept of a soldier being both light and line infantry was only standardized and common in the ACW
It was. This was part of longer video detailing Napoleon's first major defeat as Emperor during renewed war with Austria. They split it off into a single video.
The British had the double line vs triple line of other army’s of the time. It allowed them to cover more frontage with less troops. It was also said that the 3rd line was responsible for causing casualties on the first two lines.
Excellent video. I love watching military history, notably Germany on the Eastern Front 1941-1945. Been watching more Napoleon lately but I never really knew much about infantry tactics. Until now, that is!
Grenadiers originally did used to throw explosives but according to wikipedia, that fell out in the 18th century. But the idea of these prestigious, high quality formations persisted and so you had grenadier formations not throwing grenades anymore afterwards. I'm not as big into military history in the Napoleonic Wars, but there's a western tradition of putting the best part of your formation at the right side. It was a place of prestige in a battle line. This goes back even into the classic era of Ancient Greece. Old tradition in the days of sword, shield, and spear: You have your shield on your left arm, and you can rely on the man to your right whose shield will protect you, too. So only best and bravest would be on the right side of the line. Nobody's shield will protect their right side. So the battalion would still have its elite component, their grenadiers, and they were always on the right side of the line.
@@Warmaker01 Being part of an elite unit also does wonders for morale. I remember watching a US army veteran talk about how the training standards between regular troops and the airborne aren't that different and neither is the gear that much better. They're more specialized. The psychological effect however is substantial. Men will fight harder even if they just believe they are part of elite formations. Surprising but it makes sense when you think about it.
Just watched napoleon, makes sense now. My wife kept asking me why they were all marching together so tightly and why the horses don’t just charge the rectangle formation 😂
An important distinction which the graphics allude to was the fact that the British often fought in lines two men deep as opposed to the European powers who fought in three lines, due to the generally more professional nature of the British troops (being as it was a 'volunteer' army) the two formations often had similar fire rates with British troops generally having more regular training and hence a higher fire rate (the myth is three rounds in a minute to the European's two - although Prussian line regiments had the same allocation of shot for yearly training so it would be expected that they would have similar fire rates). The French of all nations had the lowest volume of shot allocated for training in line with being an army based on mass conscription and to a certain extent and often won battle through a combination of massed cannon and infantry charges. Austrian generally shared more in common with France than it did with the northern European powers and Russia again was even more similar to the French when it came to training - although the Russians relied a lot more on irregulars such as the cassocks many of whom would have experience hunting and fighting as a result of the conditions of life on the Asiatic steppe. Great video and it would be great to see more videos with extra detail in. Source for infantry training figures - www.napolun.com/mirror/napoleonistyka.atspace.com/infantry_tactics_2.htm
The British training reached its height in 1914, when the Germans thought that they were being fired upon by machine guns at Mons & 1st Ypres, rather than rifleman, with the Lee-Enfield .303’s ...
Don't use napolun.com as its horribly biased against the British, deliberately so. It cherry picks and paraphrases out of context to make the British seem wholly incompetent despite masquerading as being objective.
I am not a expert at war. This channel is A gem. It seems like The French Army under Napoleon bonaparte Marshalls were there Own worst enemies. Russian Campaign and Waterloo . Morale?..
Excellent video, very interesting. Pronunciation tips: chasseurs à pied, we don't pronounce the "s" at the end of chasseur nor the "d" at the end of pied (pronounce it this way : pié). Voltigeur: vɔltiʒœʀ. Thank you for your videos.
@@1987MartinT While it would be awesome, it is a real hell to manage any tercio-like formation in Total War games. They aren't fundamentally designed around that exact period of combat that stretches between the end of the middle ages and the beginning of the enlightenment
This vid was awesome! You guys are awesome! I just can’t get this kind of stuff anywhere else except (kings and generals) but I like you guys more when it comes to the Napoleonic Wars.
Anyone know of a videogame which emulates this kind of combat realistically? I'm thinking Hearts of Iron 3 levels of micromanagement but in the Napoleonic era? Great video! This channel is my favorite for this era of military history; everything is so beautifully and clearly visualized!
Scourge of War-Waterloo Also Ultimate General Civil War... It's in the American civil war but it's the best game I've ever played that emulates this kind of warfare.
Good Idea to put this at its own Video. Great Fan of the Series. Could you maybe do something about Assasination Attemps on Napoleon? I heard there where some pretty close calls
I'm in a Napoleonic history group on Facebook and the amount of times I've read about one or two french columns charging a redcoat line only to be repulsed by volleys of fire is lovely. My theory was that French doctrine was suited to big battles with a toolbox of support units to draw on, but in smaller battles of armies in the thousands, the doctrine is hopeless as the infantry form columns to advance, receive no cavalry or skirmisher support, negligible artillery support, rout after heavy casualties and leave whichever poor sods were trying to support them in line formation to be outflanked and overrun.
Muskets where inaccurate back then, men had to march in linear formation and fire volleys to maximize the effect on the enemy. The officer of the formation had to determine the right distance to open fire, and it was extremely difficult to find the golden spot to stop marching and open fire on the enemy, in combat conditions, in order to have the maximum effect of your guns and the least casualties from the enemie’s. Accuracy and rate of fire depended on the soldier’s training experience, quality and quantity of gun powered as well as the wind. However another reason for men lined in packed ranks which is rarely mentioned, is the fact that if a soldier reloaded and fired at will, the flash from the discharge of his weapon once he fired could ignite the powder of the weapon of the soldier next to him who might not have been ready to fire. To avoid such incidents officers preferred volleys with all men firing at the same time.
Fighting in separated formation is more logical if muskets are inaccurate back then. You are increasing enemy's accuracy in tight formation. I read from contemporary sources that even in 16th century, muskets are 100% accurate in short range. In short range, tight formation is better than separated formation due to you having more muskets to fire enemy. Tight formation is better against cavalry as well but explaining tight formation only with cavalry is not enough because tight formations are used non-cavalry battles as well.
The musket was not that inaccurate for the time, with most manuals instructing that firing be commenced at 300 meters, or "point blank" (during these times point blank was considered the distance at which the bullet would fly straight, or as straight as the small deviations in bullet direction after leaving the muzzle permitted). In the hands of a good shooter it was very accurate at ranges of up to 100-150 meters, and when used en masse, AS WAS THE STANDARD FOR THE TIME, they were very much effective
Everyone pretty much already knows about the French, British, Prussian, and Russian armies of the time so I will discuss some of the much less talked about armies. Austrian Cavalry, particularly their Hungarian Hussars, were considered the finest in Europe during the Napoleonic period and afterwards. Even better than the Russian cavalry, though they are normally the ones held in the most high esteem. Also although the Prussians were pretty backwards and were still following Frederick the Great's doctrines some of the smaller less important German kingdoms like Wurtemburg and the Kingdom of Saxony had some of the finest infantry of the time and Napoleon was very happy to conscript them into his army in the first half of the wars and then the Allies were very thankful to have them in the second half and they played crucial roles in the final wars against France. The Scandinavian countries were fairly lackluster, but Sweden was particularly good when they were allied with Russia and Prussia and performed very well. The Polish soldiers in the Grande Armee were actually considered even more disciplined and powerful than the French themselves. Possibly because they were fighting basically for their country's existence, which was only in vain because afterwards Poland was once again divided up like a pie between the Russians, Prussians, and Austrians. So much so that Napoleon sent a great number of them to fight in the Haitian Revolution.
Longstanding tradition, stemming from the Ancient Greek practice of placing the most experienced hoplites on the right (shield formations would drift to the right, as the soldiers would instinctively move to the right to get protected by their neighbor's shield). The most elite were placed on the right to prevent this drift. Practical reasons, as the right-side of the company is where the standards/flag were carried, and so every soldier looking in that direction would also see the elite grenadiers, and thus help improve morale. Finally, that's just the layout of a single battalion of 600 men, so their marching order was irrelevant compared to battles that would have 50,000-75,000 soldiers in the army.
![True Size of Napoleon's Army - The Infantry [c. 1808] 3D DOCUMENTARY](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/qR0sODDUT8U/mqdefault.jpg)
This is our quick guide to Napoleonic infantry tactics, which first appeared in our Battle of Aspern video. I thought it might be useful to post it as its own video for those looking for a quick summary of the topic. I hope you find it interesting and look forward to heated debate on Napoleonic tactics... (For those seeking more detail on this topic, there's links to some good books in the video description, including those referenced for the making of this video. Rory Muir's book is particularly recommended). New Napoleon video out on Thursday - the Invasion of Russia.
damn thanks for this. Im writing a book set in Napoleonic setting and these videos are really helpful
More tactics and strategy please.
Good video. One small pet peeve. For many videos now, you say "Voltigeur" with a hard "G". However, in French, it is pronounced "Voltijeur" (soft 'G'). See wikipedia pronunciation.
And for "Pied" (the "D" is mute).
Thank you!
Watched the Invasion of Russia video last night. Absolutely fantastic! You are coming on leaps and bounds, especially with the artwork, animation and battle maps!
This tactics video is the icing on the cake!!
Can't wait for Part 2 👍
@Shivaji the Great an awesome start over here👌😎
Timing couldn't be better. I'm planning a siege of my neighbors and I now realize my tactics were just plain silly.
IRL or game?
IRL. His kid threw a football into my yard and I took it as an act of war.
Classic bro!
Don't neglect your supply lines
Good one
How a bout a L O N G guide tho?
I would freaking love that. I hope they do something of the sort.
Yes please give me over an hour long video on this topic
Ok guys I'll try to explain in my poor english (I'm French)
The debate between liners and columnists have been raging for years in those times.
Germans under Friedrich the great invented the skewed order, keeping the line while maximizing firepower but required a lot of well drilled troops to be executed.
Napoleon on his side prefered the mass formations as it was unpredictable for the ennemy to know where he will strike.
The classic napoleonic order was the C line, or U formations.
A deformed skewed order. The aim was to feint attacks by forming a C, and when the ennemy reacted suddenly forming a U to maximize firepower. The ennemy then ready tl attack suffers maximum losses while neighboring corps forms the C ready to mass themselves to exploit any breakthrough.
In fact he resolved the question by remaining on line but flexible to quickly reform columns.
This was helped by a well planned counteractions (cav, arty and chasseurs) to allow time for its troops to prepare those manoeuvres.
But the main innovation was the corps d'armée (a little army by itself with its own guns and cav attached). Those were considerably more autonomous than the old regiment system, interarm operations were easier, that gave napoleonic armies much more both strategical and tactical advantages.
But Napoleon was more a strategist than a tactician. His corps d'armée as brigades had the possibility to act as attacking or defending units independently according to their neighboor.
The main victory key for Napoleon was the strategic quadilateral, each corps d'armée widespread on a region could rapidly reinforce another allowing more coverage of areas, better speed and as well better maneuvrability.
@@yc2673 your English is fine, some misspelled words but it's a long comment so that can be forgiven.
Could you elaborate on the difference between a strategist and a tactician.
I also find it interesting how combined arms warfare evolved over time. One thing I read about in ww1 was the advent of the Creeping Barrage where artillery was very well coordinated with the infantry and would keep a continuous bombardment while they advanced. How sophisticated was artillery in those days and how closely could they coordinate with other units. Like cavalry and infantry.
@@ieuanhunt552 Hello,
The main difference between a tactician and a strategist consists in that the tactician is an operational genius, able to use its assets at best to win victories.
The strategist will not focus on the operational ground rather than the whole campaign. His skill is to turn its victories decisive.
For example, in ww2, Erwin Romel was a superior tactician while Montgommery a strategist.
For the first world war, I can give you some elements on the strategic evolutions :
1- The german defense in depht was the most notable innovation, 3 lines, one to fight and leave, the second to hold, the third to reinforce and counterattack.
The main idea was that ennemy artillery could not follow the advance of its troops and therefor the second line unbombarded was well organized to receive them while they didn't have the cover of their own artillery.
It was decisive. But the French and British both counter reacts smartly.
The British was to transform its infantry as an heavy infantry (with light machineguns) in a defensive purpose to block germans counterattacks while the offensive and breakthrough left to the tanks.
The French on the other side focused on mobility with the most motorized army of the war. The trucks allowed the french artillery to moove quickly and to exerce a "rolling fire" disorganizing the German defense in depht. While breakthrough was always the purpose of infantry helped by light mobile tanks.
Germans doctrine relied heavily on the train and ability to mass artillery and troops to create breakthrough while the French relied on a dispersed approach while rapidly mooving its artillery and troops by truck on chockpoints.
I hoped I bring you something.
Have a good day!
"Lines", "formations", "columns", "artillery", "cavalry", "manoeuvre", "division", "army", "lieutenant", "sergeant", "colonel", "general", "assault", "company", "marine", "canonnier", the whole military vocabulary of english language is made of french words.
Military? Yes, remember the lorda who waged war in england were normans, french.
@@cseijifja also France was a beast of a country for a long period of time. From the Middle Ages to the Napoleonic War, they're the ones that helped influence many battle tactics.
@@alexanderchristopher6237 france had arguably the mightiest army in the wrold in the 1700's - early 1800, damn, they took on europe 6 times and won.
I'd say that applies to many of our words beyond just military vocabulary due to Norman influence following 1066. The language of nobility only really stopped being French during the Hundred Years War where more emphasis was put on establishing a more unique English identity.
Some of those words are italian, such a colonel
I remember that in one battle, Napoleon's cavalry couldn't penetrate through the infantry so they decided to move back a little bit and let the cannon do the work so the infantry would scatter and the cavalry would be easier to pick them. They do this repeatedly
You’re thinking of Austerlitz and Friedland
Using cavalry, or even the threat of cavalry, was a sound tactic to force the enemy into a square so the artillery could do their work. Only Wellington's unconventional order to lie down saved the Allied force from much greater casualties at Waterloo.
@@derkylos would you mind going into a little bit of detail? Why did he order the troops to lie down?
@@stayclassic2361 i think he means reverse slopes
@@sarpkaplan4449 but why? Simply to obscure reserve numbers or was there an oncoming threat?
Great video. Something not mentioned here though, which played a huge role in Napoleonic infantry tactics, was that the Napoleonic wars--and the French Revolutionary wars that preceded them--were the first modern examples of mass conscription and mobilization in warfare. 18th Century battles were fought with small, professional armies, brutally drilled, and fought for relatively small exchanges of territory (in western Europe, at least). The Revolutionary wars were titanic struggles which were painted by bouth sides as having existential threats to the nations involved, especially France. Masses of raw recruits, patriotic volunteers, and fresh conscripts had to fight against these well-drilled professional units. It was actually the French who first used assault columns to break the thin lines of Allied infantry in battle, and this tactic proved successful enough that even Napoleon was doing the same with his elite Old Guard in the final charge at Waterloo. With tactics such as these, it's no surprise that Napoleonic era battles were far more decisive than those that came before--for better or for worse for the commanders using these tactics.
It's a good point - one can read accounts of Austrian and Prussian commanders facing the French in 1792 who are horrified by these waves of untrained but highly motivated French soldiers coming at them. Revolutionary warfare is particularly interesting, and there seems to an endless debate over how new it was (use of light infantry, loose order etc), and/or to what extent the French army still relied on its professional, ancien régime core (the guillotining of aristocrats is such a popular image of the Revolution, that many people are surprised by just how many aristocrats stayed in the army, or were allowed to return.) One can also understand a lot about warfare in this period simply by studying each country's development and implementation (or not) of conscription laws..
@@EpichistoryTv helllo
It's good you added "in western Europe, at least", because otherwise it would not have been true. Mass armies of conscripts and line infantry existed long before the French Revolution. Russia, Prussia and Austria had armies of tens of thousands or even more soldiers from conscription in the middle of 18th century or even earlier. This was one of the reasons of the demise of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, because she missed the time when big armies of line infantry from conscription started to being created. When the Commonwealth had an army of, say, 30 thousands of mainly cavarly, Russia, Prussia and Austria alread had armies close to 100 thousands or even more.
Not if it's a chinese civil war💀
Plus LOTS of guns!
-Napoleonic Infantry Tactics Guide-
How to be an Expert in Napoleon Total War
Edit: looks like 1.2k People Agreed with Me and have Therefore Benefitted from this Video.
La montee de l'empire lol
@@ygobno Yep....
Videogames
Hahaha
I was going to write the same thing, dude. However, it seems I am late, lol.
The cavalry be like:
*Oh God it's a square*
Back when squares were cool.....
eric cloud it’s hip to be square
@098765 Craper and
Cavalry also be like
Oh god a rectangle
What Ney said at Waterloo
@Yu Hin TAM You expose the rear who can't march at pace backwards.
that moment when you see epic history uploaded after the school its like christmass
God I love your videos, they're so well done and interesting
After watching this video, I read some Napoleon's tactics from campaigns prior to Waterloo and used it to beat my friends in a game of Age of Empires IV.
Did it work?
@@hidokun9145 imagine playing an inferior game of its series whose purpose is just to milk idiots like OP
Whether it worked or not doesnt matter because he should have been playing ultimate general civil war instead
@@epsilon3821 ok ._.
Invincible tactic in Total War (in my case Rome and Medieval II):
-pikemen on the front and sides (and behind if needed)
-masses of archers behind them
Works every time against the AI (and often against human opponents too) with somewhat balanced armies.
Same applies to defending villages (with 4 ways to the town square), but it's even easier because you need even fewer melee troops relative to archers. In this case you can beat an army that's like twice the size of your own.
@@kgsvvgla2i Very accurate! Can't say most people, but a lot of people don't care for formations and stances, but that's how they lose a fight most times. In AoE, when you order the spikemen to hold their positions, not a single horse can get through, it's the perfect counter to enemy cavalries, while they blocks the incoming charges, switch in the long range squadrons from the back to finish the job.
Another thing is flanking, it matters a great deal in RTS games. Just like the scenario above, while all of this is happening, my reserved cavalry units have already flanked around out of view and charging the rear units, which in most cases are vulnerable long range units
Great video as always. The Napoleonic Era battles are really amazing, and many people adore this era's battles. However, I think that no one wishes to be a soldier in the armies of Napoleonic Era. Honestly, getting hit by a musket ball can be the worst thing ever in the world.
Oh there are some fetishists who would.
@@artificialintelligence8328 Maybe if u are in the far back or part of the artillery
Getting hit by a canon ball is a bit higher on my list of least favorite things to do...
I’d say a bayonet to the guts to be left bleeding out on a field of corpses for several days would be worse
I found a Minie ball when I was a kid. Holding it in my hand was scary. The idea of being hit by something even more crude induces shudders.
The quick summary has me ravenous for more. These videos are brilliant! I've never before been so intrigued by the Napoleonic era. Your work is tremendous sir! Bravo!
4:09 "Horses won't charge a solid wall of men"
This is debated actually. While for the period it seems correct, there are cases where cavalry charges possibly did slam into walls of men in medieval and ancient times (again heavily debated).
IMO it seems more likely that it had more to do with a fear of the musketfire than the refusal to slam into men, but I really want to explore the topic more. Great vid as always!
Lots of sources from the Napoleonic wars repeatedly state that charging horses would pull up a few meters just before hitting the square(or opposing charging cavalry), main benefit of multiple staggered battalion squares opposed to a single long battalion line is that the horseman will ride through any gaps they find, rather than engaging the squares themselves, one british (highlander i believe) says that when his square was surrounded by french cavalry, only a few braver horseman actually rode up close to hack at the square, the others stayed back, hoping to entice the infantry to fire their muskets with little effect before closing.
The main effect of a heavy cavalry charge in any time period would be that the infantry would falter and turn their backs and run right before the cavalry charge hit home, thus the horses can pass in between them and there is no great impact, like at Waterloo also, the British heavy cavalry charge destroyed D'Erlons corps because it was just a packed group of men huddled together, the horses 'charged' at the trot and the french caught by surprise just turned and fled, only way a couple hundred horseman could move through thousands of tightly packed infantry.
I agree with you on that. Musket volleys are loud and produce heavy amounts of smoke. Horses can easily be startled by these factors for the time. As for the medieval ages, it would seem to be easier for a well trained warhorse to charge into a wall of spears and shields unless the defenders were disciplined themselves. Horses are capable of doing incredible feats as long as they are well fed and trained by their riders. There are many lose accounts of these feats. But I agree that it is still debatable.
I've talked to 2 people who have worked with horses their whole life about this and both of them said that horses are... well... pretty blunt in the head so you could train them to do almost anything. This is just circumstantial evidence on my part and they obviously haven't bred any war horses but I think the idea of "train them hard enough and they'll do it" is important.
@@HeyImLucious The point with that is you have to remember that theres a rider ontop as well, you may undoubtedly be able to ride a horse through a line of men, but will the rider want to surround himself with enemy infantry with 10 inch bayonets in his face
I don't get why it's still debatable. How do you explain the polish hussars charging at the muslims at vienna, or Alexandar the great breaking the persian lines etc. Cavalry charges into mass infantry formations just have to be real.
We Austrian Napoleonic Reenactors call our "Mass" the "retarded square". :D
Nohrii lol
Fellow Austrian here, now I REALLY want to know what you call it in German!
@@leporellothegoldfinch Exercierreglement 1807 by Erzherzog Carl he developed "die Masse", we re-enactors say "das behinderte Karree".
@@leporellothegoldfinch Dumbox
Could not agree more with people I have never met before.
These tactics were still in use at the time of the American Civil War. They were being taught to cadets at West Point, The Citadel and VMI. American officers were steeped in Napoleonic tactics.
Post waterloo a lot of French Generals went to French pre owned territory in the States
My understanding is that one of the reasons for the high casualty rates during the Civil War is that the generals were using Napoleonic tactics with relatively new weapons like rifled muskets and rifled cannon and, in some cases, Gatling Guns.
@user-xx7um5bh5w The main reason for keeping troops together in large bodies during Napoleonic (and Civil War) combat was to exercise tactical control in an age when radio communications did not exist. Couriers and had to hand deliver orders to junior officers and situational reports to commanding officers. That's difficult to do if your troops are strung out over the countryside. Innovations in weapons like rifle muskets and rifled artillery could start killing at distances Napoleonic era weapons could not.
This is true but the most successful generals of the Civil War (Jackson, Grant, Sherman) were the ones who abandoned the Napoleonic style and adapted to the modern technology.
The perfect voice and perfect music, I really enjoy these videos and the well researched information they contain.
Napoleon: *does literally anything*
Epic History TV: It's free real estate
I feel like this refers to the general era tactics rather than napoleon himself.
The thing was that era was so influenced by Napoleon it might as well have been named after him
@@StaleBaguette Dominated, yes. Influenced, not necessarily.
@@StaleBaguette
It is
@@賴志偉-d7h Since his innovations were copied by his ennemies throughout the wars, you can safely say that he influenced greatly the era in terms of military tactics. Of course he also used stuff from other people, but I believe it wasn't at the same scale.
I LOVE this animation style. Please do more like this for other eras!
Nice Beethoven background music 👍
What exactly? Should be in video description
@@gorankatic40000bc Dam bro
Beethoven Egmont Overture
Brilliant video! Nice illustrations, great audio (music, sound effects, etc.) I also really enjoy the subtitles, that I assume you at EHTV make. Thank you very much.
Wow! Getting that down to six minutes and doing such a comprehensive and understandable job is amazing. Well done.
Watched the Invasion of Russia video last night. Absolutely fantastic! You are coming on leaps and bounds, especially with the artwork, animation and battle maps!
This tactics video is the icing on the cake!!
Can't wait for the Invasion of Russia Part 2 👍
No spoilers lol.
@@shaneisimperium3210
My lips are sealed mate 👍
Get ready for one of the best episodes, yet!
Use your own brain. Ukraine is the human trafficking capital of the world. And a World Economic Forum bitch. You are too I guess.
What a pleasant surprise . Always interested in battle field tactics.
Would you be interested in doing a 30 years war video series . Thanks will be epic
That would be a long video. Lol
I would have never thought to concentrate line infantry, but it makes total sense for the wars Napoleon fought. Loose ranks minimize your casualties but they drag a battle out. Napoleon was getting dogged by five or six nations' armies for his entire career. He couldn't afford long battles, because reinforcements were always in his enemies' favour. He needed to fall on one army, tear them to pieces, and get back on the move fast, and casualties could be minimized with using higher quality troops that only improved their quality with every battle they experienced.
We could use many more videos just like this, thanks guys these Napoleonic videos have sparked a new interest in Napoleons grand campaigns good show.
We can say that the skirmishers were using tactics that were quite advanced for their times because that's exactly how infantrymen fought in later eras.
Thats it. Im downloading empire total war again.
You need Napoleon Total War ;)
me too, just going back to it.
@@gs7828 i would, but i need to upgrade my pc 😢
Holy roman empire! Its out! Spread the word! Right out of the shower, I am delighted to see Epic History TV with a new Napoleonic war upload! LOVE IT!
It truly is a great honour to have my career commemorated in this way
Hey Napoleon.
*hold up*
I'm writing some fanfiction using the napoleonic wars as the setting. You guys are an amazing source of information keep up the good work my friends.
@@franzvonoverbeck8541 neither xD
For which series?
@@sealy_99 Ah it's Equestria Girls thing. The girls look back at history and we follow a napoleonic inspired character.
@@lelouche25 Can't say I've ever seen it but good luck nonetheless. I'm planning on eventually attempting an A Song of Ice and Fire fanfic myself that I want to set in this period too, but I really need to do some more research first. Stuff like this is really helpful and easy to digest.
Cringe
fantastic visuals and overall just a really good video. made me realize that military tactics are much more interesting then i had originally thought. i had always wondered why warfare was fought the way it was with such formations, im glad i finally found out.
i own napolean total war, and this gave me a newfound appreciation for it.
Thanks for this! this will definitely help with my battles
This has to be about the best breakdown for this on the tube!
I always tought it was a weird way of fighting, now I now why. A big thank you!
The thumbnail is a post napoleonic depiction of Swiss troops from the canton of Vaud firing in a line. Just a small detail I noticed
I have done PHD on Napoleon by epic history TV videos.
I just love your videos. They bring interesting information like just few othef channels do
This video was uploaded again... still gonna watch it
Me and my marching band are making battle plans against another school. This is perfect to practice. Such a handy quick guide
When I saw the green jackets I heard Richard Sharpe say "95th Rifles South Essex"
The narrator has the right voice for the subject.
Brilliant video! Explains the tactics in a really concise, simple and easy to understand manner. Thanks guys!!!
A summary of all the army tactics explained in most of Epic History's Napoleonic videos. Nice!
A highly informative guide, giving all important factors of the subject in clear, precise manner using excellent computer graphics. A great tutorial for any budding Napoleonic wargamer, and not only for them either ! 🌟🌟🌟
This is a nice introduction into napoleonic wars tactics. To those who seek more details and facts about tactics of that era I highly recommend book "Battle Tactics of Napoleon and His Enemies" by Brent Nosworthy. It is by far the top 3 book about N tactics of all time. Just a little note of mine to this video about square formations. They of course could be broken and they were on many occasions. Experienced Cavalry formation could easily exploit just a little hole, gap in the square created by canister shots for an instance. Then they would charge directly into that gap and get inside of the square which always led to a total slaughter of the enemy. There were even occasions were a french heavy cavalry (Kellermann or d'Hautpoul) broke two squares with one charge! they broke one square and then charged into another one standing behind and breaking them into pieces. There were obviously other tactics for cavalry vs square developed during that era. But what really determined the outcome of this clash was the firmness of the square and the experience/bravado of charging cavalry. In percentages it is hard to estimate the success of cavalry breaking a square formation but I personally would put it to 10%. Here are some of the examples:
-In 1812 at Kliastitzi, Russian Tambov Regiment awaited the cavalry. The French charged and received volley that emptied only "a few saddles". Before the infantry could reload their muskets the cavalry were upon them. The square was broken.
-In 1813 in Dresden, Russian Grodno and Loubny Hussars broke square of 5th Voltigeurs of the Young Guard, killing, wounding and taking prisoner 310 guardsmen. The Grodno Hussars broke also another square of the Young Guard. (Source: Plotho - "Der Krieg" Vol II). [But in February 1813 in Kalish the Russian Alexandria Hussars were unable to break three weak Saxon grenadier companies !]
- In May 1813 at Michelsdorf, 15 squadrons of Prussian cavalry> (Silesian Cuirassiers, East Prussian Cuirassiers, Silesian Uhlans and Guard Light Cavalry Regiment) attacked the French 16th Division. The Silesian cuirassiers crushed the partially formed French square, the East Prussian cuirassiers moved between Michelsdorf and Hainau, routing all formed bodies of infantry they found. The other cavalry units captured six guns and cut the gunners. The 16th Division broke and fled in a bloody rout to Michelsdorf.
Would've helped 10 years ago when Napoleon Total War came out! Great video!!
Lmao
Thanks for the Video EH great content as always
I wrote a thesis on regulated vs unregulated brothels between the British / Wellington( regulated) and French / napoleon (unregulated). Syphilis took out tons of French line troops that he would have had at Waterloo. Just as timely as the Prussians entering the battle. Napoleons best logistics general was not present. Bad shoes also played a role.
Ironic. In WW1 it was the British that refused to hand out condoms to the soldiers. The result were STDs, unlike the French soldiers.
I was in Coast Guard basic training and it's cool how we have battalions and companies. Obviously not for infantry combat, but to train close order drill.
Straightforward, simple, accurate, simply very nicely done:)
One thing I learned from Rome total was was by this age calvary became way more situational than older times. In general you charge at the wrong time and your forces just get gunned down. Charge at a lone unit from the rear, routing units, or heavy rain were the only ideal conditions. Even artillery can defend itself well from calvary with well timed grape shots.
IRL, heavy rain was just a bad time for battles all around. A single horse can churn up the ground, but 200-600 at once? That basically leaves a quagmire wherever it goes! That mud makes it hard for the cavalry in the rear to keep formation; for the cavalry to pull back after the charge (I know you know cycle-charging works wonders); and for infantry to follow up the attack. That's on top of the issues of commanders seeing what the hell was going on, or relaying orders in the downpour.
Basically, unless you had a truly elite fighting force that knew what to do down to muscle memory, it was best to wait for clearer conditions. You're absolutely right about cavalry not being used to charge the front of a formation however. Even in ancient times, that was risky and by the time muskets were the mainstay of armies, it was just suicidal. Amazing to think that some idiots were still trying that when machine guns were a thing...
Greetings from Australia! Another great vid
Nice and easy to understand
Take me back to the time where most armies used this tactics
Brutal but no where near as insane as modern warfare. Far fewer total casualties, shorter wars, and minimal civilian casualties. Settle things in a decisive battle like men!
Sorry but I don’t want to live on a time where casualties were high on both sides and you are just standing there looking at the guy pointing a gun directly at you.
@@rhysnichols8608 Lmao American losses in the Middle East are minimal whereas more than 500 000 soldiers died in the campaign of Russia ALONE. The Napoleonic Wars were extremely violent and murderous.
@Bass Slapper Yes they were lmao, you never heard about Carl von Clausewitz but you should read about him. You'll learn that a shift happened in warfares during the Napoleonic wars causing these conflicts to be way more violent than they were the last centuries. Also just how many times were the people conscripted to basically butcher each other up? WW1 had more casualties cuz guess what, after a century there was a demographic growth, in case you didn't know in the 1790's France had the largest population in Europe with less than 30 million people. And you're basically saying that warfares today are the same as in WW1 which is the dumbest shit I've ever heard.
Say hello to dying at age 35
This channel is a simple joy!
Wow! All those years I was convinced that artillery's main purpose was to blast enemy infantry in small explosions, rather than tear through multiple columns like that. Too many video games, I suppose.
they didn't really have explosive shot as there were very unreliable (faulty fuses), dangerous for crews (faulty fuses), and more trouble then they were worth (faulty fuses). They would mostly use solid shot or grapeshot/canister shot (technically different shells which canister being metal shells being shot inside metal cans which broke when fired while grapeshot was shot with round shots being in canvas bags or held together by a coiled bar), or shrapnel shot (had a hollowed out center and filled with small round shots and then packed with a small amount of explosive power with a timed fuse which would explode while a few feet off the ground). There were though shells which were explosive, though they weren't fired by cannons but instead other artillery pieces such as howitzers
or to put it simply cannons fired canisters or shots while mortars or howitzers fired shells (which were explosive)
It's thanks to Hollywood (they set flashy fire explosions to go off when cannonballs hit). But yeah generally the balls bounce in a line taking out whatever is in there path,
Reminds me of that museum piece where the display says “from a wounded soldier”
The chest piece has an entrance hole you could stick your head through and an exit larger.
“Wounded”
No, you are not wrong. At that time they just used iron balls. But they also used ball with explosive in some battle.
literally one of my favorite videos
I just started the video and low and behold, I see Austrian (actually Hungarian) infantry!!! Great start! Most ppl think the Napoleonic wars were just between France and Britain....probably because most of the English publications Americans read are from the British and they only get their biased point of view.
we've made a series of videos on the wars between France and Prussia, Austria and Russia. In fact this tactics guide first appeared in our video about Aspern-Essling.
Britain had always been a cherry picker ever since they lost Hundred Years War. After that all they can do is scheme, fund, patrol the sea and do some hit-and-runs. They can no longer bear the brunt of fighting like the continental European powers.
@@nomooon Yes, Britain funded the Russians, Prussians and Austrians throughout the Revolutionary wars and the Napoleonic wars. Because Britain did not have the manpower they had - or the autocratic regimes.
But Britain did fight in the Peninsular War, with the Portuguese and Spanish - once the Spanish realised that they were on the losing side.
steve exactly thanks
@@cliveburt2638 England fighted on continent only if they were sure to have their ships for retreat and when the battles of men arrived you prefered wait behind a high plain.
Forget reality TV; give me an ancient history documentary! Nothing beats the drama of Cleopatra's love life or Julius Caesar’s surprise party.
Nice vid with useful informations and advices for us, wargamers...and wonderful animations/illustrations!👍👍
These Napoleonic videos are first rate! Please do make more of these!
I disagree, all fusiliers can fight in open/extended order. A lot of times the company was formed up in 2 ranks in the french army as well as from 1791 frequently drill in 2 ranks, as the regulation states once a company was reduced below 12 files it was to be formed on 2 ranks. And right before the column charges the enemy the divisions would go close to each other, I think a few paces but I forgot. And this video should be titled more about close order French and Austrian infantry tactics on a battalion level.
Do you have source for your first sentence? Open order was considered the formation for elites. While fusiliers could be trained for this, the average soldier fought in line.
@@95DarkFire It was common for regular infantry to skirmish in small engagements, where line formations wouldnt make much sense.
So it's assumable that when needed even in battle they could make them skirmish if the situation required that, commanders back then were mostly focused on practicality more than etiquette.
Still i presume that in big battles it was more rare, the concept of a soldier being both light and line infantry was only standardized and common in the ACW
It was. This was part of longer video detailing Napoleon's first major defeat as Emperor during renewed war with Austria. They split it off into a single video.
Make guides on cavalry and artillery tactics.
Absolutely top notch video on a higher level than most documentaries, and a great way to explain why no line battles arent dumb.
The British had the double line vs triple line of other army’s of the time. It allowed them to cover more frontage with less troops. It was also said that the 3rd line was responsible for causing casualties on the first two lines.
Listening to Napoleon Total War ost and this video gets uploaded. Nice.
great soundtrack for sure
Quick and decisive
Still waiting on your napoleonic war series
Excellent video. I love watching military history, notably Germany on the Eastern Front 1941-1945. Been watching more Napoleon lately but I never really knew much about infantry tactics. Until now, that is!
Me: trying to do homework
EHTV: posts
Me: math can wait
math can always wait
@@nomooon maths will always wait.
Egmont overture in the Background🔥
I've never quite understood, what exactly was the role of greandier during these times? I don't suppose they actually hurled bombs at the enemy
I imagine they were just very skilled infantry which could be used for more precise, risky attacks and flanking
Grenadiers originally did used to throw explosives but according to wikipedia, that fell out in the 18th century. But the idea of these prestigious, high quality formations persisted and so you had grenadier formations not throwing grenades anymore afterwards.
I'm not as big into military history in the Napoleonic Wars, but there's a western tradition of putting the best part of your formation at the right side. It was a place of prestige in a battle line. This goes back even into the classic era of Ancient Greece. Old tradition in the days of sword, shield, and spear: You have your shield on your left arm, and you can rely on the man to your right whose shield will protect you, too. So only best and bravest would be on the right side of the line. Nobody's shield will protect their right side.
So the battalion would still have its elite component, their grenadiers, and they were always on the right side of the line.
no, they were elite shock troops
@@Warmaker01 Being part of an elite unit also does wonders for morale. I remember watching a US army veteran talk about how the training standards between regular troops and the airborne aren't that different and neither is the gear that much better. They're more specialized. The psychological effect however is substantial. Men will fight harder even if they just believe they are part of elite formations. Surprising but it makes sense when you think about it.
Just watched napoleon, makes sense now. My wife kept asking me why they were all marching together so tightly and why the horses don’t just charge the rectangle formation 😂
The background music fits perfectly well with that guys voice
We need a longer version of this video
Some great info, thanks.
Thanks, I'll use this in my next NTW3 match!
An important distinction which the graphics allude to was the fact that the British often fought in lines two men deep as opposed to the European powers who fought in three lines, due to the generally more professional nature of the British troops (being as it was a 'volunteer' army) the two formations often had similar fire rates with British troops generally having more regular training and hence a higher fire rate (the myth is three rounds in a minute to the European's two - although Prussian line regiments had the same allocation of shot for yearly training so it would be expected that they would have similar fire rates).
The French of all nations had the lowest volume of shot allocated for training in line with being an army based on mass conscription and to a certain extent and often won battle through a combination of massed cannon and infantry charges. Austrian generally shared more in common with France than it did with the northern European powers and Russia again was even more similar to the French when it came to training - although the Russians relied a lot more on irregulars such as the cassocks many of whom would have experience hunting and fighting as a result of the conditions of life on the Asiatic steppe.
Great video and it would be great to see more videos with extra detail in.
Source for infantry training figures - www.napolun.com/mirror/napoleonistyka.atspace.com/infantry_tactics_2.htm
Do you mean Cossacks, rather than cassocks?
The British training reached its height in 1914, when the Germans thought that they were being fired upon by machine guns at Mons & 1st Ypres, rather than rifleman, with the Lee-Enfield .303’s ...
Don't use napolun.com as its horribly biased against the British, deliberately so. It cherry picks and paraphrases out of context to make the British seem wholly incompetent despite masquerading as being objective.
I am not a expert at war. This channel is
A gem. It seems like
The French Army under
Napoleon bonaparte
Marshalls were there
Own worst enemies.
Russian Campaign and
Waterloo . Morale?..
Excellent video, very interesting. Pronunciation tips: chasseurs à pied, we don't pronounce the "s" at the end of chasseur nor the "d" at the end of pied (pronounce it this way : pié). Voltigeur: vɔltiʒœʀ. Thank you for your videos.
Thanks for this. I will use it the next time I come up against Napoleonic infantry.
Watching this wishing I could implement such things in Total War Warhammer 3 as the Empire with handgunners
Something you could look into, which might be more effective with Imperial forces, is pike and shot tactics.
@@1987MartinT While it would be awesome, it is a real hell to manage any tercio-like formation in Total War games. They aren't fundamentally designed around that exact period of combat that stretches between the end of the middle ages and the beginning of the enlightenment
This vid was awesome! You guys are awesome! I just can’t get this kind of stuff anywhere else except (kings and generals) but I like you guys more when it comes to the Napoleonic Wars.
Anyone know of a videogame which emulates this kind of combat realistically? I'm thinking Hearts of Iron 3 levels of micromanagement but in the Napoleonic era?
Great video! This channel is my favorite for this era of military history; everything is so beautifully and clearly visualized!
eu4 is 1444 and ends in 1820ish. but if you know hoi3 you probably know eu4. Tbh it reminded me of total war games.
Total War Napoleon
Total war Napoleon is the perfect game
Scourge of War-Waterloo
Also Ultimate General Civil War...
It's in the American civil war but it's the best game I've ever played that emulates this kind of warfare.
Total war Empire or Napoleon
Thanks, now I can properly imagine the Sharpe stories accurately. Every time they mentioned the french columns I would imagine much thicker columns
In the story wasn't it always 3deep for french, 2 deep for English.
Good Idea to put this at its own Video. Great Fan of the Series. Could you maybe do something about Assasination Attemps on Napoleon? I heard there where some pretty close calls
one of my favorite videos
i'm getting some deja vu here, i feel like i've watched this video before
I'm in a Napoleonic history group on Facebook and the amount of times I've read about one or two french columns charging a redcoat line only to be repulsed by volleys of fire is lovely. My theory was that French doctrine was suited to big battles with a toolbox of support units to draw on, but in smaller battles of armies in the thousands, the doctrine is hopeless as the infantry form columns to advance, receive no cavalry or skirmisher support, negligible artillery support, rout after heavy casualties and leave whichever poor sods were trying to support them in line formation to be outflanked and overrun.
Muskets where inaccurate back then, men had to march in linear formation and fire volleys to maximize the effect on the enemy. The officer of the formation had to determine the right distance to open fire, and it was extremely difficult to find the golden spot to stop marching and open fire on the enemy, in combat conditions, in order to have the maximum effect of your guns and the least casualties from the enemie’s. Accuracy and rate of fire depended on the soldier’s training experience, quality and quantity of gun powered as well as the wind.
However another reason for men lined in packed ranks which is rarely mentioned, is the fact that if a soldier reloaded and fired at will, the flash from the discharge of his weapon once he fired could ignite the powder of the weapon of the soldier next to him who might not have been ready to fire.
To avoid such incidents officers preferred volleys with all men firing at the same time.
Fighting in separated formation is more logical if muskets are inaccurate back then. You are increasing enemy's accuracy in tight formation. I read from contemporary sources that even in 16th century, muskets are 100% accurate in short range. In short range, tight formation is better than separated formation due to you having more muskets to fire enemy. Tight formation is better against cavalry as well but explaining tight formation only with cavalry is not enough because tight formations are used non-cavalry battles as well.
The musket was not that inaccurate for the time, with most manuals instructing that firing be commenced at 300 meters, or "point blank" (during these times point blank was considered the distance at which the bullet would fly straight, or as straight as the small deviations in bullet direction after leaving the muzzle permitted). In the hands of a good shooter it was very accurate at ranges of up to 100-150 meters, and when used en masse, AS WAS THE STANDARD FOR THE TIME, they were very much effective
You hardly “maximise firepower“ if you use the division column in attack.
It was nothing but a battering ram, crude and easy to perform.
You maximise firepover in battallion line. Assault collumn is well, as the name suggests assault. Bayonet charge.
He literally said when deployed in line and using volley fire, not in column.
Human being has been one crazy mob in history. Very good video.
There’s always that one player that thinks they can rambo the battle to victory
Can we please start an army and conquer the known world? You can lead us with that glorious voice of yours...
I learnt French tactics from watching Sharpe.
They were basically the Flood from Halo 😂
What
"I learnt History from a TV Show which Main Goal is Entertainment"
Everyone pretty much already knows about the French, British, Prussian, and Russian armies of the time so I will discuss some of the much less talked about armies. Austrian Cavalry, particularly their Hungarian Hussars, were considered the finest in Europe during the Napoleonic period and afterwards. Even better than the Russian cavalry, though they are normally the ones held in the most high esteem. Also although the Prussians were pretty backwards and were still following Frederick the Great's doctrines some of the smaller less important German kingdoms like Wurtemburg and the Kingdom of Saxony had some of the finest infantry of the time and Napoleon was very happy to conscript them into his army in the first half of the wars and then the Allies were very thankful to have them in the second half and they played crucial roles in the final wars against France. The Scandinavian countries were fairly lackluster, but Sweden was particularly good when they were allied with Russia and Prussia and performed very well. The Polish soldiers in the Grande Armee were actually considered even more disciplined and powerful than the French themselves. Possibly because they were fighting basically for their country's existence, which was only in vain because afterwards Poland was once again divided up like a pie between the Russians, Prussians, and Austrians. So much so that Napoleon sent a great number of them to fight in the Haitian Revolution.
"Horses won't charge a solid wall of men and steel"
Battle of Garcia Hernandez: *stares*
The usual account of Garcia is that a dying horse collapsed into the French square in its death throes.
I’m showing my family this before we watch the new Napoleon movie…perfect summary of the main points.
could anyone tell me why the grenadiers were located on the right and the light infantry on the left?
Longstanding tradition, stemming from the Ancient Greek practice of placing the most experienced hoplites on the right (shield formations would drift to the right, as the soldiers would instinctively move to the right to get protected by their neighbor's shield). The most elite were placed on the right to prevent this drift.
Practical reasons, as the right-side of the company is where the standards/flag were carried, and so every soldier looking in that direction would also see the elite grenadiers, and thus help improve morale.
Finally, that's just the layout of a single battalion of 600 men, so their marching order was irrelevant compared to battles that would have 50,000-75,000 soldiers in the army.
95th regiment? NOW that's soldiering. Anytime I see anything 95th or sharpshooter related I like it right away naturally THATS my style sir.