I’m the guy who made the comment, I have carefully listened to your arguments, and I think you make some really good points, however all the details you mention about the Prussian doctrine, training and combat system, however interesting and innovative they were….they still lost were it counted, in battle! Despite All the details you gave, in my arrogance I can still say “they still lost” I personally feel the most important measure for an army is it’s ability to fight, and despite all the interesting things the Prussians did, they were not enough for them to win in battle, I stand by my statement. I suppose the debate is over how we measure the effectiveness of an army, I appreciate your point that it’s ability to reform and have another go was a vital and extremely valuable asset for the Prussians, and in this respect I will concede they were superior to the French, certainly in 1815. However a lot of this is due to factors outside the military, the political situation was very different for France and Prussia. In 1815 Napoleon was alone, taking a huge gamble, backed up with a war weary populace who were not willing to persevere through long hardship, their support for Napoleon was limited to how successful he was, there was no realpolitical second chance for Napoleon in 1815, the 100 days was his LAST chance. The Prussians however could rely on the 3 biggest powers in Europe to back them up, this will have played a big subconscious role in the populace and soldiers of Prussia, and this was also their ‘war of liberation’ so morale on all levels was high, largely due to factors not intrinsic to the army, ans the populace was much more willing to endure set backs than the French, these factors are independent of military doctrine, and if they did lost a key battle, no worries, the British will take up the slack, the Austrians will bail us out etc. Also the Prussian head of state wasn’t leading the army, the state could still function if the army was defeated, Napoleon WAS the state, so the consequences for losing were far more severe for the French, they were at the end of their string, whereas the Prussians were flying high on a comeback story of epic proportions. So the Prussian did benefit from a much stronger political base, and due to their many allies, defeat wasn’t seen as disastrous as it was for the French, who couldn’t rely on anyone to support them if they lost, I’d argue this is one reason the Armé du Nord disintegrated after Waterloo, whereas the Prussians were able to keep good order after their defeats (granted lingy was not as heavy a defeat for the Prussians as Waterloo was for the French) My point is the Prussians had multiple second chances and could afford to reform and try again, due to their political situation, the French could not, and these matters were outside of the militaries direct control. I personally judge armies on their fighting ability, and for my money, at Gilly, charlmois, Lingy and wavre, the Prussians were bested on the field of battle by a rag tag French army living on a prayer, so if we are assessing an army on its combat effectiveness, I have to disagree that the Prussians were the best in 1815. GRANTED the French had one huge advantage, they were commanded by one of the best military geniuses EVER, I think any lesser commander would have been beatable by the Prussians, but at wavre (and to some extent Gilly) Napoleon wasn’t even present, and the Prussians STILL lost, so I think the disparity between the 2 armies is a little deeper than just Napoleon being a god of war and giving the French a huge power up. I personally for this periods style of warfare the Prussian system, while good and certainly forward thinking, was simply inferior to the French at this stage. A huge cavalry reserve, massed batteries and swarms of skirmishes for me are still better than the Prussian system of interspersing cavalry and infantry, there were benefits of course, but I huge breakthrough via a mass cavalry assault was more devastating than local cavalry support for infantry, in my opinion ( and the battlefield performance at lingy backs this up) Now I do give the Prussians big respect as their doctrine WOULD grow to be very effective in the future, but for the tale end of the Napoleonic wars, they weren’t quite carling on the battlefield. However their logistics and organisation were among the best, and Prussian doctrine by 1870 and 1914 proved to be superior, but in 1815 it was not - they lost every solo engagement against the French, and if we judge an army by its fighting ability, they were simply not the best……BUT their political position and willingness to have another go is admirable and did prove vital for allied success, but for me these are factors that are not necessarily due to the military. Having a European wide coalition to bail you out helps. I will say as a fighting force the Prussians were not the best, but as an army there is an argument that some aspects of them were the best in 1815, and you laid that out well in this video, I just don’t think they are superior in enough areas to qualify as the best. They did lose the battles which for me is the main measure of an army. The same in 1814, Blüchers army was beaten 4 times in 6 days by Napoleon, who suffered 1/10 of Blüchers casualties! out and out beaten, but due to their political situation the Prussians came back and ultimately took Paris with the rest of the coalition, but I don’t think anyone would claim the Prussians were better than the French upon viewing their battle performance, same applies in 100 days. Great video and I’m honoured i inspired the video. I appreciate your points, but for me battlefield performance is the highest measure of an army. Prussia had some great assets and were better than the French in some areas for sure, they were better at rapidly reforming as you said, but I think if you took the Anglo army out of the 100 days, the Prussians are getting harried back east, regardless of their ability to keep coming back for an arse kicking ;) To conclude best army of 1815? Definitely arguable, but for me no, they lost every solo battle, but showed great ability in other areas for sure. Best Napoleonic army??? Not even close, La Grande Armee of 1805 without doubt. If the Prussians in 1815 couldn’t beat the weakest French army Napoleon fielded in a solo battle, they would have no chance against Napoleons army at its peak, despite the tactical innovations of the 10 years between 1805 and 1815, especially since most of those innovations were inspired by Napoleon anyway. Prussia 1815 was a powerful and vital team asset, the French in 1805 were solo MLG pros, who bested far greater odds than the Prussians ever faced, and won in some very spectacular battles, contrast this to Prussia 1815 who only won once, when the British did about 65% of the work. I’m judging these armies in the context of their time, but if we zoom out and ask which army was the most forward thinking, by 1815 yes it was Prussia, but most effective at the time? France overall.
Thank you for the super detailed reply! It weird because I absolutely agree with all your points! You lay them out well, and there's little room for disagreement. I guess it comes down to what weight one puts on various successes/failures of the army. That's a great point about the Peussians knowing they had 'off table' support, particularly from Russia and Austris and one I'd certainly not considered. An interesting game would be 1815 Prussia vs 1805 France, though I think warfare had changed considerably in those 10 years. I find myself inclined to agree, i think the French would probably win that one too, certainly at the tactical level. Thanks so much for inspiring me, and really making we think about a topic in a more holistic way! It really is a privilege to have such great viewers!
Hate to be that guy but they actually did win Solo battles in the 1815 campaign, most notably the battles of Sèvres and Issy, which was the final attempt for the French to defend Paris and it went rather horribly for them. There is also the point that whilst the Prussians may have been defeated tactically, they actually won on the strategic level by keeping the Grande Armee of 1815 from being able to unite, they essentially repeated their strategy from 1813/14 and to their credit it worked, even if it didn't go as smoothly as they had wanted. Winning battles is all well and good until you suddenly lose the war because you weren't paying attention to the bigger picture. There is another couple of points to consider, one being the Prussian economy at the time was a bit of a shambles to say the least so affording the massed batteries and high quality cavalry reserve was more than likely out of the question as they tend to be the biggest expense for armies at the time I think the point was brought up that the French had stolen all of the best quality horses for the Russian Campaign and probably did so again when retreating through Germany. The Prussians had to work with what they had equipment wise which was of varying quality and whatever equipment they could capture from the French. I hinted at my last point in my initial comment on this video which was that whilst he was supported by an excellent staff and corps commanders overall command fell to Blucher due to the politics of the time where perhaps more able Generals were overlooked. Whilst his aggressive spirit was loved by the Prussians, he was ultimately a reckless General and maybe a bit not all there considering he was 72 and still partaking in cavalry charges! As for us Brits doing 65% of the work during the Hundred days? It's definitely not even that if you take into account all of the Hanoverians, Dutch and Belgians, Nassauers, Brunswick and so on so forth that done a lot of the legwork during the campaign ;) I'd actually argue that the Prussians did a good percentage of the hard work themselves!
@@TheRiceHill I see your point man, but when I said the ‘brits did 65% of the work’ I meant specifically at Waterloo during the battle, and when I said Brits I meant the Anglo Dutch etc etc, I just couldn’t be bothered listing all the nationalities, the commanders were British so I just use that term. And yeah fair point abo it the Prussians winning some battles too, I had completely forgot about the post Waterloo battles, but even so, I still maintain they lost the major engagements and lost more than they won, lingy being the most obvious especially since the Prussians had larger numbers. The strategic benefit for the Prussians was that they could link up with Wellingtons army and coordinate a joint attack, this is how they beat the French, I do honestly think had the Prussians not had this luxury they wouldn’t have won alone. Therefore they can’t have been the best army.
@@NapoleonicWargaming It’s my pleasure, I enjoy these discussions, I also can’t disagree with any of your points, I think it ultimately comes down to what points we personally emphasise, for me combat effectiveness is the main measure of an army, the points you raised are all very vital, but very slightly second to battle performance in my opinion. Others may place them above
The Prussian Army of 1815 had become the first major beneficiary of the 1810s reforms which set in place the autonomy of officers and the ability to take initiative which allowed Prussia to dominate Europe later on in the century. You could say it was the army with the most potential, whereas post-Waterloo the French Army went into decline and the British Army went into stagnation which came back to bite it during the Crimea.
and cost it into the first years of WW1 . Not until the old crusties died off in Battle did the British Army start to promote on credit instead of Lordship entitlement
The skill and power of the Prussian army wasn't in the battles it won, but in how Napoleon whipped them in Germany. And whipped them at the French border. And whipped them in France. And whipped them outside Paris. And then had to surrender. Being able to keep moving forward despite the defeats they suffered is a higher accolade than if they had won those battles. For all that nerds like is love to focus on the battles ;)
You make some good points but equally make some sweeping generalisations. So: Prussian Infantry Regiments of the 1813 period, from which the 1815 army evolved, did have grenadier companies. In 1813 these were almost universally grouped in converged grenadier battalions and in Oct 1814 were consolidated into The 1st (Tzar Alexander) and 2nd (Kaiser Francis) Grenadier Regiments. In 1815 these were grouped into the Guard and Grenadier Corps under Prinz Mecklenberg-Strelitz. So saying that the Prussians did not have Grenadier Companies and using this to justify that Prussians Musketeers equated to Grenadiers goes a bit far. In fact you could argue that depriving Prussian battalions of their integral Grenadier companies actually left them weaker. Next you argue that the Prussians had a greater preponderance of light troops because 1 in 3 battalions (33%) were Fusiliers while the French only has 1 in 6 companies (16%) Voltigieurs. In fact most French Divisions of this period had 3 Regiments of Light Infantry and 1 Regiment of Light - so the proportion of Light Infantry in the average French Division was 9 companies (4 Chasseurs, 1 Caribiners and 4 Voltigieurs) from 24 (38%). Meanwhile the Prussians had 2 battalions of Fusiliers in a Brigade which generally brigaded 2 Infantry Regiments with a larger Landwher Regiment (which didn’t have Lights.) So the actual proportion of Lights for a Prussian Brigade was closer to 20%. What is more the Prussian Fusilier Battalions came from different Regiments and often struggled to work together while the French Light Infantry were both a unified Regiment AND integrated into the Line battalions and so able to work at multiple tactical levels. Finally you failed to recognise that Prussian and French coqqncepts of skirmishing was different with the Prussians adopting denser skirmish screens and a larger command cadre than the French. That said you didn’t use the valid argument that the Prussians utilised many small rifle armed Schutzen and Frewillen Jager units that were better armed, better trained and in most cases better shots than their French counterparts. This was especially the case in a Pirch and Zeithen’s Corps in 1815. Next you say that the Prussians benefitted from having cavalry integrated into the brigades. However, it could be argued that penny packeting Light Cavalry into Infantry Brigades whose commanders often didn’t know how to use them was a disadvantage compared to the French who concentrated them into Divisions attached at the Corps level. You seem to be fixated that the only Heavy Cavalry worth it’s salt were Cuirassiers. Yes they were fine cavalry but after 1813 suffered with lack of suitable mounts. The Prussians did have 4 Regiments of Kurassiers in 1815 which you correctly say did not fight at Waterloo or Ligny because they were on the Elbe. However, Prussian Hussars and Uhlans were typically excellent even if their Dragoons were less so. However, most Prussian cavalry were Landwher and were often of questionable quality compared to the French. You could also argue that the Landwher Cavalry being Lance armed restricted their utility on the battlefield but that is a debate! Finally you attribute the Prussian recovery after Ligny to their excellent HQ staff which was a factor but perhaps not as important as the lack of French Light Horse, the weather and Grouchy’s lacklustre pursuit. Finally, were the 1815 Prussians the best Napoleonic Army. Well I own the complete Prussian 1813 army in 15mm with troops to convert it into an 1815 army - so I’d love to agree with you but sadly can’t. Yes I’ll agree they were the progenitor of the Modern Military but let’s face it they weren’t a patch on the 1805 French, the 1809 French, the Grand Armee as it invaded Russia or even Wellington’s (albeit smaller) army in Spain. That said it is a fantastically evocative army that I very much enjoy using.
This must be how the old guard felt when Napoleon called them personally by name 😂 got a shock 10 secs in to the vid! Glad I was able to spark this discussion, I haven’t watched yet, a triggered comment may be pending hahah
Brilliant thanks for all the key information. I’m just painting my first 28mm Prussian infantry which will eventually be part of a diarama I’m going to build then photograph
Great video thanks and defiantly thought provoking. What in the way of books would you recommend about the Prussian army and it's commanders? Have lots on the French but none on the Prussians yet.
Excellent video! I definitely agree that the Prussian Army had the makings the makings to be one of the best armies of the Napoleonic wars, they did fantastically in the liberation war of 1813 and subsequent campaigns in the low countries and France, however I think they were held back in 1815 for a controversial reason, that being the command of Blücher. Now despite him contributing greatly to the aggressive mentality of the Prussian Army at the time and having an excellent staff, there are plenty of sources citing that he was incredibly reckless and may not have been of sound mind in his advanced age. However due to him being loved by the men and favoured by the king he ended up with overall command, I think it would be excellent to speculate how a Prussian Army in 1815 under the likes of Yorck, or Friedrich Von Bulow (Who I'd argue has a bit more of an impressive record than Blucher) would fare!
Diehard Napoleon apologist - but to hear the Prussian army being the best!? Hahahaha great conversation. Inspiring me to paint more frenchy line infantry! Great channel!
Bold statement to declare the 1815 Prussians the best army of the era- many fine attributes no doubt. I think the most important quality for an army- of any period probably- is leadership. Can have all the doctrines and logistical support and training you want- but if the guy(s) at the top are constantly making bad decisions..... And I don't know about a gorilla, but apparently a bear will beat a lion EVERY time! Oh Yeah- French, 1809
I am not sure about the Prussian's "not having grenadiers". When doing some research on a specific infantry brigade from Leipzig, in the past the grenadier battalions were put into the army vanguard in many cases. I was also under the impression that the infantry brigade normally had a battery of 6 lb guns attached. Unless their army structure changed after Leipzig, then that would be new information to me. Another item that they had for flexibility is the volunteer jaegers attached to each infantry battalion and Jaeger cavalry attached to cavalry regiments. I am not sure the extent of the training and equipment other than that they often carried rifles. I am also unsure if the volunteer jaegers were separate from the landwher system.
I would tend to AGREE especially noting how they were able to retreat in good form after LIGNY and managed to hold Grouchy at WAVRE with a rearguard!!!
My Prussian army was my first so favorite if only foe that reason. But it's a fun army to fight with with mixed brigades having integrated infantry, light infantry, cavalry and artillery.
Good video but there are gaps in your summation regarding the Light infantry ratio's for the French for example - The French had their typical Ligne Regiments of between 3-5 btlns with one company per btln as Voltiguers. However, they also had their Legere Regiments which were their Light Regiments. EVERY man in those regiments were trained to skirmish as light infantry. There was typically one Legere Regiment per Division so the French had as much as 25% of a Division as dedicated light infantry. On top of this there were the Voltiguer companies of each Ligne btln of the other three regiments of the division capable of performing skirmish duties. This provides the following percentages for a typical division. Legere 25% + Ligne 16.66% = 41%+ of a division capable of performing light infantry skirmish and screening duties in the French army. On top of this you also have situations where typical Fusilier companies of the Ligne regiments were deployed to perform light duties from time to time as well. This is very much recorded as historical fact. For the Prussians they were also able to deploy the 3rd rankers as lights when needed form Musketeer Line btlns. The British also has dedicated Light regiments, rifle btlns and so on. To be more realistic, any soldier cans be deployed as Light infantry if commanded to perform such duties but their capabilities in such a deployment can be questionable.
And excellent point! I think by 1815 the legere were light infantry in name only, certainly in 1814. There is however a spirit that goes with being a 'light' Regiment, so I take the point, it's a good one!
I have an idea for a Austrian Army based around the Girardoni air rifle from 1780, and I thought maybe you could do a army builder video on the theme. It is a simple idea just a realistic steampunk themed Austrian army. No fancy scfi guns or tech just units that could have live in the Napoleonic era. Maybe Cuirassiers for the cavalry, I think the breastplates will fit well with the idea of old tech and future tech. The rifle are rapid fire (22 rounds) but short ranged so a rule may be need for them. I am not to familiar with Austrian Generals of the period but some one that was know for looking a head or innovation would be a good commander. No real ideas on cannon but maybe you know something weird d or cool that would fit. Might be something fun to talk about or even make for a game of black power with twist.
To be fair, the Prussian army was well lead, and also they were determined, but let’s not forget the Prussian Army was mixed up with other Germans. Now Prussia was the more militaristic, and took the role of war serious, and in the end, the Prussian were the hardest more disciplined German army and has been through out German history. The Prussians took a beating at Jena, and they had to start all over again, and what’s impressive they managed to do it. The fact is Prussia were out dated by the time of 1806, but they were still disciplined soldiers, they would stand and fight. But the tactics were old and I think the Prussians were still in the era of Fredrick the great. Blucher was a good commander maybe he was a little too old for the 100 days war, and was aggressive, but I think he was capable, Blucher was not a man to underestimate, and his utter hatred for the French was also his motivation. In conclusion, the Prussians, ok may not have been battle experienced as say the French, but they were still incredibly motivated, disciplined, and had courage, they were well lead, and let’s not forget Prussian cavalry was good. Napoleon even at Jena earned his generals about Prussian cavalry. I think Ligney was a battle where the Prussians were not fully deployed and not at full strength, if they had been, it would have been more than possible that could have beaten the French. Let’s be honest they held Warve so the main body could March to Waterloo, they were not simply an army you could say mediocre, they were good soldiers.
The best Prussian troops were not in the Army of the Lower Rhine - a lot were Landwehr reservists, quite a few troops were recruited from the Rhineland that only just been incorporated into Prussia, and after Ligny thousands of them deserted, as they were only a week's walk or so from their homes and such proximity was often a desertion risk. The best Prussian troops were probably still in Prussia, not least because of distrust of their Austrian ally, though actual war would not break out until 1866. The Prussians in Belgium in 1815 were a bit of a lash-up, though this was true to some extent of all the armies in the Waterloo campaign.
What they lacked in in military dress the Prussians probably had the best esprit de corps, even the Landwehr units fought hard. The general staff matured and the reforms addressed their major weaknesses. Man for man they were as good as any army with the possible exception of the British depending on which troops made up their army.
I think where napoleon had the edge was his speed of movement. he understood supply and logistics better, especially up until 1815. the hammer blow for the French was defiantly Russia, where they didn't just loose a huge amount of men, but the training and experience that went with it. it was really just his presence on the field after that. I still think Britain had the best army in the world by 1815. small yet well tuned, led and they had the aura of wellington. and they beat the best general of all time.
The British under Wellington in Waterloo didn't even have half of his troops there, the 5,000 Germans of the KGL would actually have to be deducted from that... Did Wellington even have an aura? Yes, he was respected by his soldiers, but he probably didn't have an aura for his soldiers like Napoleon or Blücher did for their soldiers. If the British army of 1815 was the best, I don't really understand why many nations followed Prussia's example afterwards? Even the Pickelhelm was worn by a unit in the USA, and in Britain today you can still see it in its original form on the heads of soldiers in parades.
What you are arguing here only displays a sound theoretical base, in 1815 not only were reforms new and unfamiliar, but Prussia itself was exhausted, it could fight, but it's means were most certainly limited. The strongest army at the time was undoubtedly Russia's, and everyone knew it, which shaped the peace negotiations and the considerations of the powers in the aftermath. Russia probably wasn't as neatly organised, or well thought out, and it suffered from considerable corruption. But they were left with the most intact army, and in the reality of the battlefield they were formidable, while Prussia merely showed the embryo of future developments. Neither force had genius generals, in the cold hard reality of the time Russia could maintain a war which every power with the technical exception of Britain could ill afford.
A reasonable argument! I am a big fan of the 1814 Russian army, I certainly think you have a point. The Prussian kicked on throughout the 19th century though whereas the Russians stagnated. That shows to me a lack of ambition and/or intellectualism from the top of the military
No sir! Brunswick is the best. 1. Uniforms all black ez to paint. 2. Small force, quick to get on the table. 3. Small force, inexpensive. 4. Ez to store and transport. 5. Small force, less troop types. 6. Great stew!
The Prussian army was the best in the 17th century but no more in the 18th century. Austrian & Russian armies were even better in the Napoleonic times.
Frederique the Great commanded a 18th century prussian army, so I don´t know why it should be worse than the prussian army that beat the swedish at Fehrbellin. The 19th century Prussian army gave Austria and French a mayor a.. kicking in 66 and 70/71. An army could change a lot, so you cannot compare an Army from 1815 and 1866, even though the corps structure might be similar
@@olaflange5254 Indeed, the Prusian army of the early 19th century was nothing to do with the one of 1870. The Prussian army was the most powerful in the 18th century, with innovative tactics that proved their worth. But like any army that dominates the battlefield, and lives only by its achievements, it was demolished by the French army in the early 19th century.
So was the French army in 1815, Prussia and her allies were why Wellington was able to squeak out a win at Waterloo! He was a great General but let him face a 1805 Napoleon and that Army how he fares. Tired of the only thing Napoleonic players want to play is Waterloo, try something different for f sakes. Just a yanks opinion because I’m to cool for British rule lol! Have a great day.
Most people play Waterloo simply because the minis, terrain, and books are the most readily available in the Anglosphere. And building a sizeable Napoleonic army is not something mere mortals can achieve in just a few months. It takes years! Personally, if I could start again, I’d be tempted by the Revolutionary Wars of the 1790s and the armies of the 1809 campaigns, especially Austria and the Duchy of Warsaw. Or perhaps the 1813 ‘war of liberation’ in Germany.
@@sirrathersplendid4825 im starting off on 1809 currently - some very usefull Kickstarters recently Piano wargames have 1809 Danube campaign (part 1) live now - french and Austrians, Lucas did bavarians and some austrians previously as part of the Alps aflame Tyrol rebellion KS, im doing 3D print files, but physical minis are available aswell And Rafal Polkowski recently also did austrians and started with Duchy of warsaw infantry and cavalry - 3D print only though
@@sirrathersplendid4825 I concur, however OGRE’s being less than mortal we tend to game solo, as we scare people and I have no opponents in area who play will play even though I have enough minis for both French and her enemies! I am currently playing a lot of small scenarios form 1807 leading up to Eylau and the same for 1812. I just use Black powder and make up Army list based on books I have on the subjects (which if you ask my Wife is to many lol) and try to be as accurate as possible. Waiting for my Son or Daughter to come down to the lair and say that looks neat but alas trying to get them away form their games and phone seems to be as formidable as breaking a British square at Waterloo.
@@ogre8647- Sadly, I mostly play solo too. My Nappy army - though hardly big compared to what I see on youtube - is too bulky to move for an evening’s gaming. Actually, that should read “armies”, as you have to have two sides to play solo :-) I have Brits & French plus minor allies like Brunswick, Hanover, Netherlands, which mostly limits me to the Peninsula and the Hundred Days. The idea of starting a major new combatant like Austria or Russia or Prussia is too daunting at the moment. Still completing what I have.
I’m the guy who made the comment, I have carefully listened to your arguments, and I think you make some really good points, however all the details you mention about the Prussian doctrine, training and combat system, however interesting and innovative they were….they still lost were it counted, in battle! Despite All the details you gave, in my arrogance I can still say “they still lost” I personally feel the most important measure for an army is it’s ability to fight, and despite all the interesting things the Prussians did, they were not enough for them to win in battle, I stand by my statement.
I suppose the debate is over how we measure the effectiveness of an army, I appreciate your point that it’s ability to reform and have another go was a vital and extremely valuable asset for the Prussians, and in this respect I will concede they were superior to the French, certainly in 1815. However a lot of this is due to factors outside the military, the political situation was very different for France and Prussia. In 1815 Napoleon was alone, taking a huge gamble, backed up with a war weary populace who were not willing to persevere through long hardship, their support for Napoleon was limited to how successful he was, there was no realpolitical second chance for Napoleon in 1815, the 100 days was his LAST chance. The Prussians however could rely on the 3 biggest powers in Europe to back them up, this will have played a big subconscious role in the populace and soldiers of Prussia, and this was also their ‘war of liberation’ so morale on all levels was high, largely due to factors not intrinsic to the army, ans the populace was much more willing to endure set backs than the French, these factors are independent of military doctrine, and if they did lost a key battle, no worries, the British will take up the slack, the Austrians will bail us out etc. Also the Prussian head of state wasn’t leading the army, the state could still function if the army was defeated, Napoleon WAS the state, so the consequences for losing were far more severe for the French, they were at the end of their string, whereas the Prussians were flying high on a comeback story of epic proportions. So the Prussian did benefit from a much stronger political base, and due to their many allies, defeat wasn’t seen as disastrous as it was for the French, who couldn’t rely on anyone to support them if they lost, I’d argue this is one reason the Armé du Nord disintegrated after Waterloo, whereas the Prussians were able to keep good order after their defeats (granted lingy was not as heavy a defeat for the Prussians as Waterloo was for the French)
My point is the Prussians had multiple second chances and could afford to reform and try again, due to their political situation, the French could not, and these matters were outside of the militaries direct control. I personally judge armies on their fighting ability, and for my money, at Gilly, charlmois, Lingy and wavre, the Prussians were bested on the field of battle by a rag tag French army living on a prayer, so if we are assessing an army on its combat effectiveness, I have to disagree that the Prussians were the best in 1815. GRANTED the French had one huge advantage, they were commanded by one of the best military geniuses EVER, I think any lesser commander would have been beatable by the Prussians, but at wavre (and to some extent Gilly) Napoleon wasn’t even present, and the Prussians STILL lost, so I think the disparity between the 2 armies is a little deeper than just Napoleon being a god of war and giving the French a huge power up. I personally for this periods style of warfare the Prussian system, while good and certainly forward thinking, was simply inferior to the French at this stage. A huge cavalry reserve, massed batteries and swarms of skirmishes for me are still better than the Prussian system of interspersing cavalry and infantry, there were benefits of course, but I huge breakthrough via a mass cavalry assault was more devastating than local cavalry support for infantry, in my opinion ( and the battlefield performance at lingy backs this up)
Now I do give the Prussians big respect as their doctrine WOULD grow to be very effective in the future, but for the tale end of the Napoleonic wars, they weren’t quite carling on the battlefield. However their logistics and organisation were among the best, and Prussian doctrine by 1870 and 1914 proved to be superior, but in 1815 it was not - they lost every solo engagement against the French, and if we judge an army by its fighting ability, they were simply not the best……BUT their political position and willingness to have another go is admirable and did prove vital for allied success, but for me these are factors that are not necessarily due to the military. Having a European wide coalition to bail you out helps. I will say as a fighting force the Prussians were not the best, but as an army there is an argument that some aspects of them were the best in 1815, and you laid that out well in this video, I just don’t think they are superior in enough areas to qualify as the best. They did lose the battles which for me is the main measure of an army.
The same in 1814, Blüchers army was beaten 4 times in 6 days by Napoleon, who suffered 1/10 of Blüchers casualties! out and out beaten, but due to their political situation the Prussians came back and ultimately took Paris with the rest of the coalition, but I don’t think anyone would claim the Prussians were better than the French upon viewing their battle performance, same applies in 100 days.
Great video and I’m honoured i inspired the video. I appreciate your points, but for me battlefield performance is the highest measure of an army. Prussia had some great assets and were better than the French in some areas for sure, they were better at rapidly reforming as you said, but I think if you took the Anglo army out of the 100 days, the Prussians are getting harried back east, regardless of their ability to keep coming back for an arse kicking ;)
To conclude best army of 1815? Definitely arguable, but for me no, they lost every solo battle, but showed great ability in other areas for sure. Best Napoleonic army??? Not even close, La Grande Armee of 1805 without doubt. If the Prussians in 1815 couldn’t beat the weakest French army Napoleon fielded in a solo battle, they would have no chance against Napoleons army at its peak, despite the tactical innovations of the 10 years between 1805 and 1815, especially since most of those innovations were inspired by Napoleon anyway. Prussia 1815 was a powerful and vital team asset, the French in 1805 were solo MLG pros, who bested far greater odds than the Prussians ever faced, and won in some very spectacular battles, contrast this to Prussia 1815 who only won once, when the British did about 65% of the work.
I’m judging these armies in the context of their time, but if we zoom out and ask which army was the most forward thinking, by 1815 yes it was Prussia, but most effective at the time? France overall.
Thank you for the super detailed reply! It weird because I absolutely agree with all your points! You lay them out well, and there's little room for disagreement. I guess it comes down to what weight one puts on various successes/failures of the army.
That's a great point about the Peussians knowing they had 'off table' support, particularly from Russia and Austris and one I'd certainly not considered.
An interesting game would be 1815 Prussia vs 1805 France, though I think warfare had changed considerably in those 10 years. I find myself inclined to agree, i think the French would probably win that one too, certainly at the tactical level.
Thanks so much for inspiring me, and really making we think about a topic in a more holistic way! It really is a privilege to have such great viewers!
Hate to be that guy but they actually did win Solo battles in the 1815 campaign, most notably the battles of Sèvres and Issy, which was the final attempt for the French to defend Paris and it went rather horribly for them. There is also the point that whilst the Prussians may have been defeated tactically, they actually won on the strategic level by keeping the Grande Armee of 1815 from being able to unite, they essentially repeated their strategy from 1813/14 and to their credit it worked, even if it didn't go as smoothly as they had wanted. Winning battles is all well and good until you suddenly lose the war because you weren't paying attention to the bigger picture.
There is another couple of points to consider, one being the Prussian economy at the time was a bit of a shambles to say the least so affording the massed batteries and high quality cavalry reserve was more than likely out of the question as they tend to be the biggest expense for armies at the time I think the point was brought up that the French had stolen all of the best quality horses for the Russian Campaign and probably did so again when retreating through Germany. The Prussians had to work with what they had equipment wise which was of varying quality and whatever equipment they could capture from the French.
I hinted at my last point in my initial comment on this video which was that whilst he was supported by an excellent staff and corps commanders overall command fell to Blucher due to the politics of the time where perhaps more able Generals were overlooked. Whilst his aggressive spirit was loved by the Prussians, he was ultimately a reckless General and maybe a bit not all there considering he was 72 and still partaking in cavalry charges!
As for us Brits doing 65% of the work during the Hundred days? It's definitely not even that if you take into account all of the Hanoverians, Dutch and Belgians, Nassauers, Brunswick and so on so forth that done a lot of the legwork during the campaign ;) I'd actually argue that the Prussians did a good percentage of the hard work themselves!
@@TheRiceHill
I see your point man, but when I said the ‘brits did 65% of the work’ I meant specifically at Waterloo during the battle, and when I said Brits I meant the Anglo Dutch etc etc, I just couldn’t be bothered listing all the nationalities, the commanders were British so I just use that term. And yeah fair point abo it the Prussians winning some battles too, I had completely forgot about the post Waterloo battles, but even so, I still maintain they lost the major engagements and lost more than they won, lingy being the most obvious especially since the Prussians had larger numbers. The strategic benefit for the Prussians was that they could link up with Wellingtons army and coordinate a joint attack, this is how they beat the French, I do honestly think had the Prussians not had this luxury they wouldn’t have won alone. Therefore they can’t have been the best army.
@@NapoleonicWargaming
It’s my pleasure, I enjoy these discussions, I also can’t disagree with any of your points, I think it ultimately comes down to what points we personally emphasise, for me combat effectiveness is the main measure of an army, the points you raised are all very vital, but very slightly second to battle performance in my opinion. Others may place them above
Chill out Albert Einstein.
The Prussian Army of 1815 had become the first major beneficiary of the 1810s reforms which set in place the autonomy of officers and the ability to take initiative which allowed Prussia to dominate Europe later on in the century. You could say it was the army with the most potential, whereas post-Waterloo the French Army went into decline and the British Army went into stagnation which came back to bite it during the Crimea.
and cost it into the first years of WW1 . Not until the old crusties died off in Battle did the British Army start to promote on credit instead of Lordship entitlement
The skill and power of the Prussian army wasn't in the battles it won, but in how Napoleon whipped them in Germany. And whipped them at the French border. And whipped them in France. And whipped them outside Paris. And then had to surrender. Being able to keep moving forward despite the defeats they suffered is a higher accolade than if they had won those battles. For all that nerds like is love to focus on the battles ;)
... I need to stop writing these comments before listening to the end of the video :p
You make some good points but equally make some sweeping generalisations. So:
Prussian Infantry Regiments of the 1813 period, from which the 1815 army evolved, did have grenadier companies. In 1813 these were almost universally grouped in converged grenadier battalions and in Oct 1814 were consolidated into The 1st (Tzar Alexander) and 2nd (Kaiser Francis) Grenadier Regiments. In 1815 these were grouped into the Guard and Grenadier Corps under Prinz Mecklenberg-Strelitz. So saying that the Prussians did not have Grenadier Companies and using this to justify that Prussians Musketeers equated to Grenadiers goes a bit far. In fact you could argue that depriving Prussian battalions of their integral Grenadier companies actually left them weaker.
Next you argue that the Prussians had a greater preponderance of light troops because 1 in 3 battalions (33%) were Fusiliers while the French only has 1 in 6 companies (16%) Voltigieurs. In fact most French Divisions of this period had 3 Regiments of Light Infantry and 1 Regiment of Light - so the proportion of Light Infantry in the average French Division was 9 companies (4 Chasseurs, 1 Caribiners and 4 Voltigieurs) from 24 (38%). Meanwhile the Prussians had 2 battalions of Fusiliers in a Brigade which generally brigaded 2 Infantry Regiments with a larger Landwher Regiment (which didn’t have Lights.) So the actual proportion of Lights for a Prussian Brigade was closer to 20%. What is more the Prussian Fusilier Battalions came from different Regiments and often struggled to work together while the French Light Infantry were both a unified Regiment AND integrated into the Line battalions and so able to work at multiple tactical levels. Finally you failed to recognise that Prussian and French coqqncepts of skirmishing was different with the Prussians adopting denser skirmish screens and a larger command cadre than the French.
That said you didn’t use the valid argument that the Prussians utilised many small rifle armed Schutzen and Frewillen Jager units that were better armed, better trained and in most cases better shots than their French counterparts. This was especially the case in a Pirch and Zeithen’s Corps in 1815.
Next you say that the Prussians benefitted from having cavalry integrated into the brigades. However, it could be argued that penny packeting Light Cavalry into Infantry Brigades whose commanders often didn’t know how to use them was a disadvantage compared to the French who concentrated them into Divisions attached at the Corps level.
You seem to be fixated that the only Heavy Cavalry worth it’s salt were Cuirassiers. Yes they were fine cavalry but after 1813 suffered with lack of suitable mounts. The Prussians did have 4 Regiments of Kurassiers in 1815 which you correctly say did not fight at Waterloo or Ligny because they were on the Elbe. However, Prussian Hussars and Uhlans were typically excellent even if their Dragoons were less so. However, most Prussian cavalry were Landwher and were often of questionable quality compared to the French. You could also argue that the Landwher Cavalry being Lance armed restricted their utility on the battlefield but that is a debate!
Finally you attribute the Prussian recovery after Ligny to their excellent HQ staff which was a factor but perhaps not as important as the lack of French Light Horse, the weather and Grouchy’s lacklustre pursuit.
Finally, were the 1815 Prussians the best Napoleonic Army. Well I own the complete Prussian 1813 army in 15mm with troops to convert it into an 1815 army - so I’d love to agree with you but sadly can’t. Yes I’ll agree they were the progenitor of the Modern Military but let’s face it they weren’t a patch on the 1805 French, the 1809 French, the Grand Armee as it invaded Russia or even Wellington’s (albeit smaller) army in Spain. That said it is a fantastically evocative army that I very much enjoy using.
"penny packeting Light Cavalry into Infantry Brigades" Clausewitz comments that this was poor/in effective use of the cavalry.
BRILLIANT VIDEO.
THANK YOU
This must be how the old guard felt when Napoleon called them personally by name 😂 got a shock 10 secs in to the vid! Glad I was able to spark this discussion, I haven’t watched yet, a triggered comment may be pending hahah
Brilliant thanks for all the key information. I’m just painting my first 28mm Prussian infantry which will eventually be part of a diarama I’m going to build then photograph
Great video thanks and defiantly thought provoking. What in the way of books would you recommend about the Prussian army and it's commanders? Have lots on the French but none on the Prussians yet.
I haven't even watched the video and I already agree
Excellent video! I definitely agree that the Prussian Army had the makings the makings to be one of the best armies of the Napoleonic wars, they did fantastically in the liberation war of 1813 and subsequent campaigns in the low countries and France, however I think they were held back in 1815 for a controversial reason, that being the command of Blücher. Now despite him contributing greatly to the aggressive mentality of the Prussian Army at the time and having an excellent staff, there are plenty of sources citing that he was incredibly reckless and may not have been of sound mind in his advanced age. However due to him being loved by the men and favoured by the king he ended up with overall command, I think it would be excellent to speculate how a Prussian Army in 1815 under the likes of Yorck, or Friedrich Von Bulow (Who I'd argue has a bit more of an impressive record than Blucher) would fare!
Diehard Napoleon apologist - but to hear the Prussian army being the best!? Hahahaha great conversation. Inspiring me to paint more frenchy line infantry! Great channel!
Bold statement to declare the 1815 Prussians the best army of the era- many fine attributes no doubt. I think the most important quality for an army- of any period probably- is leadership. Can have all the doctrines and logistical support and training you want- but if the guy(s) at the top are constantly making bad decisions..... And I don't know about a gorilla, but apparently a bear will beat a lion EVERY time! Oh Yeah- French, 1809
Great comments.
I am not sure about the Prussian's "not having grenadiers". When doing some research on a specific infantry brigade from Leipzig, in the past the grenadier battalions were put into the army vanguard in many cases. I was also under the impression that the infantry brigade normally had a battery of 6 lb guns attached. Unless their army structure changed after Leipzig, then that would be new information to me.
Another item that they had for flexibility is the volunteer jaegers attached to each infantry battalion and Jaeger cavalry attached to cavalry regiments. I am not sure the extent of the training and equipment other than that they often carried rifles. I am also unsure if the volunteer jaegers were separate from the landwher system.
Chrleck out my series on the peussian army for more details on their reforms and organisation
very infromative, i would not mind learning more
Well done!
Prussians have Grenadiers in 1815, the two grenadier regiments formed a grenadier brigade, instead earlier combined grenadiers battalions.
I would tend to AGREE especially noting how they were able to retreat in good form after LIGNY and managed to hold Grouchy at WAVRE with a rearguard!!!
I feel like if blackpowder made a 1814/1815 supplement French should generally be worse in terms of stats but just have ridiculously good moral.
Great comments
My Prussian army was my first so favorite if only foe that reason. But it's a fun army to fight with with mixed brigades having integrated infantry, light infantry, cavalry and artillery.
Good video but there are gaps in your summation regarding the Light infantry ratio's for the French for example - The French had their typical Ligne Regiments of between 3-5 btlns with one company per btln as Voltiguers. However, they also had their Legere Regiments which were their Light Regiments. EVERY man in those regiments were trained to skirmish as light infantry. There was typically one Legere Regiment per Division so the French had as much as 25% of a Division as dedicated light infantry. On top of this there were the Voltiguer companies of each Ligne btln of the other three regiments of the division capable of performing skirmish duties. This provides the following percentages for a typical division. Legere 25% + Ligne 16.66% = 41%+ of a division capable of performing light infantry skirmish and screening duties in the French army. On top of this you also have situations where typical Fusilier companies of the Ligne regiments were deployed to perform light duties from time to time as well. This is very much recorded as historical fact. For the Prussians they were also able to deploy the 3rd rankers as lights when needed form Musketeer Line btlns. The British also has dedicated Light regiments, rifle btlns and so on. To be more realistic, any soldier cans be deployed as Light infantry if commanded to perform such duties but their capabilities in such a deployment can be questionable.
And excellent point! I think by 1815 the legere were light infantry in name only, certainly in 1814. There is however a spirit that goes with being a 'light' Regiment, so I take the point, it's a good one!
Unquestionably resilient
I have an idea for a Austrian Army based around the Girardoni air rifle from 1780, and I thought maybe you could do a army builder video on the theme. It is a simple idea just a realistic steampunk themed Austrian army. No fancy scfi guns or tech just units that could have live in the Napoleonic era. Maybe Cuirassiers for the cavalry, I think the breastplates will fit well with the idea of old tech and future tech. The rifle are rapid fire (22 rounds) but short ranged so a rule may be need for them. I am not to familiar with Austrian Generals of the period but some one that was know for looking a head or innovation would be a good commander. No real ideas on cannon but maybe you know something weird d or cool that would fit. Might be something fun to talk about or even make for a game of black power with twist.
That would be very cool! Don't tell general Dan though, his Austrians are scary enough!
To be fair, the Prussian army was well lead, and also they were determined, but let’s not forget the Prussian Army was mixed up with other Germans.
Now Prussia was the more militaristic, and took the role of war serious, and in the end, the Prussian were the hardest more disciplined German army and has been through out German history.
The Prussians took a beating at Jena, and they had to start all over again, and what’s impressive they managed to do it. The fact is Prussia were out dated by the time of 1806, but they were still disciplined soldiers, they would stand and fight. But the tactics were old and I think the Prussians were still in the era of Fredrick the great.
Blucher was a good commander maybe he was a little too old for the 100 days war, and was aggressive, but I think he was capable, Blucher was not a man to underestimate, and his utter hatred for the French was also his motivation.
In conclusion, the Prussians, ok may not have been battle experienced as say the French, but they were still incredibly motivated, disciplined, and had courage, they were well lead, and let’s not forget Prussian cavalry was good. Napoleon even at Jena earned his generals about Prussian cavalry.
I think Ligney was a battle where the Prussians were not fully deployed and not at full strength, if they had been, it would have been more than possible that could have beaten the French. Let’s be honest they held Warve so the main body could March to Waterloo, they were not simply an army you could say mediocre, they were good soldiers.
Completely agree with all your points!
The best Prussian troops were not in the Army of the Lower Rhine - a lot were Landwehr reservists, quite a few troops were recruited from the Rhineland that only just been incorporated into Prussia, and after Ligny thousands of them deserted, as they were only a week's walk or so from their homes and such proximity was often a desertion risk. The best Prussian troops were probably still in Prussia, not least because of distrust of their Austrian ally, though actual war would not break out until 1866. The Prussians in Belgium in 1815 were a bit of a lash-up, though this was true to some extent of all the armies in the Waterloo campaign.
What they lacked in in military dress the Prussians probably had the best esprit de corps, even the Landwehr units fought hard. The general staff matured and the reforms addressed their major weaknesses. Man for man they were as good as any army with the possible exception of the British depending on which troops made up their army.
To be honest, i think we all know The real test of one's metal with Prussians is actually suffering all the painting..... (when you know you know)
have you ever done video about swedish army?
I think where napoleon had the edge was his speed of movement. he understood supply and logistics better, especially up until 1815. the hammer blow for the French was defiantly Russia, where they didn't just loose a huge amount of men, but the training and experience that went with it. it was really just his presence on the field after that. I still think Britain had the best army in the world by 1815. small yet well tuned, led and they had the aura of wellington. and they beat the best general of all time.
The British under Wellington in Waterloo didn't even have half of his troops there, the 5,000 Germans of the KGL would actually have to be deducted from that...
Did Wellington even have an aura?
Yes, he was respected by his soldiers, but he probably didn't have an aura for his soldiers like Napoleon or Blücher did for their soldiers.
If the British army of 1815 was the best, I don't really understand why many nations followed Prussia's example afterwards?
Even the Pickelhelm was worn by a unit in the USA, and in Britain today you can still see it in its original form on the heads of soldiers in parades.
You explain the it so well that even a bonehead like me can understand
What percentage of the Prussian army in the 100 days was Landwehr?
Auftragstaktik came out of 1806. It was not really "big" till much later though.
@@AR-GuidesAndMore I think it was Trevor N Dupuy ‘s book about the German general staff that has a good description of it
Looks like @napoleonic wargaming has finally succumbed to the clickbait trend😂
What you are arguing here only displays a sound theoretical base, in 1815 not only were reforms new and unfamiliar, but Prussia itself was exhausted, it could fight, but it's means were most certainly limited.
The strongest army at the time was undoubtedly Russia's, and everyone knew it, which shaped the peace negotiations and the considerations of the powers in the aftermath. Russia probably wasn't as neatly organised, or well thought out, and it suffered from considerable corruption. But they were left with the most intact army, and in the reality of the battlefield they were formidable, while Prussia merely showed the embryo of future developments.
Neither force had genius generals, in the cold hard reality of the time Russia could maintain a war which every power with the technical exception of Britain could ill afford.
A reasonable argument! I am a big fan of the 1814 Russian army, I certainly think you have a point. The Prussian kicked on throughout the 19th century though whereas the Russians stagnated. That shows to me a lack of ambition and/or intellectualism from the top of the military
Something Odd about that soldier in front rank of the 2:30 photo ......
Buuh, didn't catch the stream!
No sir! Brunswick is the best. 1. Uniforms all black ez to paint. 2. Small force, quick to get on the table. 3. Small force, inexpensive. 4. Ez to store and transport. 5. Small force, less troop types. 6. Great stew!
Hahaha. Sold!
Jawohl.
The Prussian army was the best in the 17th century but no more in the 18th century. Austrian & Russian armies were even better in the Napoleonic times.
Frederique the Great commanded a 18th century prussian army, so I don´t know why it should be worse than the prussian army that beat the swedish at Fehrbellin. The 19th century Prussian army gave Austria and French a mayor a.. kicking in 66 and 70/71. An army could change a lot, so you cannot compare an Army from 1815 and 1866, even though the corps structure might be similar
@@olaflange5254 Indeed, the Prusian army of the early 19th century was nothing to do with the one of 1870. The Prussian army was the most powerful in the 18th century, with innovative tactics that proved their worth. But like any army that dominates the battlefield, and lives only by its achievements, it was demolished by the French army in the early 19th century.
So was the French army in 1815, Prussia and her allies were why Wellington was able to squeak out a win at Waterloo! He was a great General but let him face a 1805 Napoleon and that Army how he fares. Tired of the only thing Napoleonic players want to play is Waterloo, try something different for f sakes.
Just a yanks opinion because I’m to cool for British rule lol!
Have a great day.
Most people play Waterloo simply because the minis, terrain, and books are the most readily available in the Anglosphere. And building a sizeable Napoleonic army is not something mere mortals can achieve in just a few months. It takes years!
Personally, if I could start again, I’d be tempted by the Revolutionary Wars of the 1790s and the armies of the 1809 campaigns, especially Austria and the Duchy of Warsaw. Or perhaps the 1813 ‘war of liberation’ in Germany.
@@sirrathersplendid4825 im starting off on 1809 currently - some very usefull Kickstarters recently
Piano wargames have 1809 Danube campaign (part 1) live now - french and Austrians, Lucas did bavarians and some austrians previously as part of the Alps aflame Tyrol rebellion KS, im doing 3D print files, but physical minis are available aswell
And Rafal Polkowski recently also did austrians and started with Duchy of warsaw infantry and cavalry - 3D print only though
@@sirrathersplendid4825 I concur, however OGRE’s being less than mortal we tend to game solo, as we scare people and I have no opponents in area who play will play even though I have enough minis for both French and her enemies! I am currently playing a lot of small scenarios form 1807 leading up to Eylau and the same for 1812. I just use Black powder and make up Army list based on books I have on the subjects (which if you ask my Wife is to many lol) and try to be as accurate as possible. Waiting for my Son or Daughter to come down to the lair and say that looks neat but alas trying to get them away form their games and phone seems to be as formidable as breaking a British square at Waterloo.
@@ogre8647- Sadly, I mostly play solo too. My Nappy army - though hardly big compared to what I see on youtube - is too bulky to move for an evening’s gaming. Actually, that should read “armies”, as you have to have two sides to play solo :-) I have Brits & French plus minor allies like Brunswick, Hanover, Netherlands, which mostly limits me to the Peninsula and the Hundred Days.
The idea of starting a major new combatant like Austria or Russia or Prussia is too daunting at the moment. Still completing what I have.