Napoleonic Infantry Tactics
Vložit
- čas přidán 26. 04. 2024
- A look at Napoleonic Infantry Tactics and Combat. Covering Line Infantry, Light Infantry, Volley Fire, Skirmishing, Charge, Formations, etc.
Napoleon in the thumbnail by vonKickass.
»» SUPPORT MHV ««
» paypal donation - paypal.me/mhvis
» patreon - / mhv
» subscribe star - www.subscribestar.com/mhv
» Book Wishlist www.amazon.de/gp/registry/wis...
»» MERCHANDISE - SPOILS OF WAR ««
» teespring - teespring.com/stores/military...
» redbubble - www.redbubble.com/people/mhvi...
» SOURCES «
Rothenberg Gunther E.: The Art of Warfare in the Age of Napoleon
Nafziger, George: Imperial Bayonets. Tactics of the Napoleonic Battery, Battalion and Brigade as Found in Contemporary Regulations. Greenhill Books: London, 1996.
Crowdy, Terry E.: Napoleon’s Infantry Handbook. Pen & Sword Military: Barnsely, UK, 2015.
Nosworthy, Brent: Battle Tactics of Napoleon and his Enemies. Constable: London, UK, 1997.
Bruce, Robert B.; Dickie, Iain; Kiley, Kevin; Pavkovic, Michael F.; Schneid, Frederick C.: Fighting Techniques of the Napoleonic Age 1792 - 1815: Equipment, Combat Skills, and Tactics
Ortenburg, Georg: Waffen der Revolutionskriege 1792-1848
Browing, Peter: The Changing Nature of Warfare. The Development of Land Warfare from 1792 to 1945
Chandler, David: The Art of Warfare in the Age of Marlborough
Hughes, B. P.: Firepower - Weapon Effectiveness on the Battlefield, 1630-1850
Philip J. Haythornthwaite: Weapons & Equipment Of The Napoleonic Wars
Füssel, Marian: Waterloo 1815. C. H. Beck: München, Germany, 2015.
Lind, William S.: Maneuver; in: Margiotta, Franklin (ed): Brassey’s Encyclopedia of Land Forces and Warfare, p. 661-667
![True Size of Napoleon's Army - The Infantry [c. 1808] 3D DOCUMENTARY](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/qR0sODDUT8U/mqdefault.jpg)
My potshots are amazing. I feel attacked.
don't worry comrade, your leadership abilities make up for your obvious lack of any spatial awareness and firing skills ;)
Took you this long to start researching Napoleonic tactics when you've been playing Holdfast for how long? No wonder your RP was half-assed.
Just for this fucking comment, I fucking love you no homo LOL
I did not expect you here after just wathing one of your videos
Yeetus
“Not free roaming soldiers taking potshots”
*picture of soviet womble*
Sounds about right.
12:46 Rothenberg notes the lack of wounds due to bayonet. This maybe due to the death of the soldier and that he never got back for surgery for his wound to be counted.
Similarly when metal helmets were introduced in WWI the amount of head wounds increased in the dressing stations. Seemly the helmets were worse than useless, but on the contrary as soldiers would previously receive a fatal head wound and never make it back to medical care, but were now only wounded and would possibly survive.
This reminds me of when they started putting armor on planes, most saw that most planes that survived battles had lots of bullet holes on the wings so they should armor those spots, one guy scratched his head and went: but they survived, and everyone had an epiphany, as far as I remember
Isn't that something called survivor bias? It's like how the M4 Sherman has an undeserved reputation as pitifully armored and protected. But that's really only because the crew had a tank that was really easy to get out of. They were the ones who made it back to complain. If only Panther or Panzer 4 crews were so lucky.
@highjumpstudios2384 yup
About the bayonets. I found a diary of a Polish officer from the era (at first he served in the French army, later in the army of Duchy of Warsaw). He notes that bayonets were quite poor weapons in close combat, especially against cavalry. He points out that stopping or dropping a horse with a bayonet thrust is almost impossible so most soldiers had to rely on using their muskets' butts to hit enemy's horses heads and knees.
Very interesting Thanks !
I thought the reason they deployed bayonets against horses was less to attack the horse directly but was instead used to stop the horse from the horse's own fear of being impaled, causing the horse to stop and become an easier target for musket fire or other attacks. But i guess that won't make sense you would think they would train their horses to be calm during combat.
I have been trained in using bayonet and can confirm that they are quite poor weapons when attached to lighter and shorter rifles of today. These guns are both longer, but not long enough to be good spear, and heavier making them very poor melee weapons. Against horses guns are just too short and too long at the same time, not long enough to brace it and skewer it and too long to actually stab the horse. A long knife, entrenchment tool or infantry saber would be so much better than pointy boomstick in actual melee combat.
Bayonets are a morale weapon first and stabby weapons second. No one wants to be run through by it if they can help it. Not that they are not effective as British have shown in Irak and Afganistan where they have done bayonet charges against enemy armed with modern weapons.
@@Salesman9001 Exactly. Few sources also mention that bayonets had a tendency to get stuck in clothing and gear of opponents.
@@kamilszadkowski8864 If it is not razor sharp (none ever were) it will do that, just like dull knife will. Also it can and will get stuck in bones.
WW1 use of bayonet is pretty interesting reading as it's far better documented, can't recommend anything as it has been years since I read those books.
Sadly if Hollywood made a movie about this period the light infanterie would take accurate potshots and bayonet charges would result in intense hand to hand combat until only one side could stand upright
Hand-to-hand combat would also revolve around the units breaking all forms of cohesion and pairing off into countless individual one-on-one duals for maximum bloodshed per minute.
Not Hollywood but there is a really good movie about this period called "Waterloo", by the Russian company Mosfilm, starring Rod Steiger: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterloo_(1970_film)
czcams.com/video/qIpO1UIqp8w/video.html
They used Soviet troops as extras and were required to learn the actual Napoleonic drills. Really.
@@podemosurss8316 And the Americans gave us the movie The Patriot.
If you like Russian movies, I highly recommend the movie "White Tiger" (also on CZcams I think).
@@Schmidt54 The Patriot isn't set during the Napoleonic wars, I was talking about a good movie about the Napoleonic wars that I was able to watch.
@@podemosurss8316 My comment was meant ironically. The Patriot (while being a good movie) is a typical Hollywood movie, with only little regard to historical accuracy.
If you want a real recommendation for that era: "The Duellists" by Ridley Scott, starring Harvey Keitel and Keith Carradine.
I think Nosworthy's comment about useless squares refers to squares composed of cavalry, not infantry squares.
Having horsemen form up in squares would negate their mobility, requiring refoming before any maneuver. Since cavalry are primarily maneuver forces, that which reduces that characteristic might be seen as "worse than useless."
yeah that's a strange quote if it would refer to infantry squares. Even at a cursory glance you could see that they were used in the most famous battle of the era, Waterloo.
2yrs late to the comment but I had the same thought. Keegan laid out some details from Waterloo than made them sound particularly effective, to the point of Cavalry being increasingly ineffective.
11:57 wait is that soviet womble?
It is ! Surely a reference to Soviet's Holdfast video (one of my favorite)
actually, it is just a reference to Soviet's general play-style, which is similar to mine, although he is far more skilled in general.
@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized I fully expect you by now to make a video explaining Soviet and ZF strategy and tactics as some joke video, maybe for April's fool.
And that would be glorious.
@@Toonyy55 dont tease cy with diggers,he will open fire on you!
@@Toonyy55 by "Tactics" you mean "faffing about and dying a lot" right?
I would like to see how Napoleonic era marching camps and temporary forts were erected!
@Aerspasius I know the one:D that's what prompted me to think of this too
Yes, that would be interesting topic.
Well, the romans carried their forts with them in the baggage train, it only makes sense to assume that this practice was continued, and improved upon. Atleast for wooden forts or camps.
@@BudMasta Yes, they carried tents with them. Napoleonic armies didn't make use of temporary forts in the same way that the Romans did, but when they would make a wooden fort they would likely cut down nearby trees to do so. If anybody is interested, there are several accounts of Napoleonic soldiers that describe these sorts of things.
@@kapitankapital6580 @GoBIGclan
They "carried" tents with them. I.e. they were in the baggage trains that were many miles behind the soldiers. During Napoleonic times, baggage trains were to slow and could not keep up with the speed of the army. This also lead to the fact that while every squad should have had access to a tent, often they were simply no longer put on the baggage trains, so even if the baggage managed to catch up, there simply would be no tents available.
Almost no soldier on campaign would have had access to tents. There are almost no period images depicting tents during a campaign. Soldiers would commonly erect shelters from wood and straw, or sleep without a shelter completely. In the case of the British army, there are reports of soldiers using their blankets as a tent, with the guns serving as tent poles. The French did not have access to blankets though, as these traveled with the baggage trains. However, on campaign every french soldier would have had access to a "Sac de distribution" a rather large linen bag that was meant to serve as straw-mattress, sleeping bag, shelter and bag to carry rations all at once.
In 90% of cases only more permanent camps would have seen tents. But even in permanent camps this is not always the case. Many of the permanent camps were made from wooden shelters and self made barracks.
All of the armies participating in the Napoleonic Wars had regulations on how to form camp, with nice drawings illustrating the layout of the camps. However on campaigns, these instructions were often not followed, as soldiers would commonly just throw shelter wherever they came to a halt. Pickett lines would still be formed though, and those would sometimes involve erecting makeshift temporary field works if in enemy territory. These "fortifications" would usually not be meant as actual fortifcations, but simply as a way to conceal the picket post.
I am currently in the process of collecting information and contemporary drawings about Napoleonic (French) Camps and have constructed various campaign style shelters before. It is not as much work as you would think it is, and it works just as well, if not better than any tent, as you can literally throw a fire right in front of it, which will
keep you warm during the night.
Very disciplined study! Many history/military science channels are dubious in their discipline for skeptical rigor.
I immensely appreciate how you represent the uncertain in the works you are using. As a social scientist I have to say this is a refreshing channel to discover. Keep up the great work!
thank you!
"Napoleonic Infantry Tactics"
Empire and Napoleon total war players: *The Expert*
;à
Yet in campaign the AI just walks in lines toward your obviously canister short loaded cannons secured by 3 grenadiers units and 2 jagërs in front of them :)
hell yea that happens sometimes too. You gotta move your units by 1 meter so that automatically the AI starts charging at you (total war ai moment)
@@gabinchorein-parisot3255 Why do you use light infantry ?
I only use them with missile cav for composite line against marathas melee horde if I get bored with artillery spawn lol.
Ai is too primitive to fill limited unit slot.
You guys should download the darthmod mod, its a great change to thw game and makes it more realistic.
Many, many years ago I read something similar about bayonet (and saber) wounds in the American Civil War. They were remarkably rare given how much training emphasized the bayonet. In fact, there are more accounts of regiments standing remarkably close (given that they all had rifles by the 1860s) and blasting away at each other for long periods of time than there are of attackers closing on defenders until it became a contest of bayonets. Usually, as you said, one side breaks before contact is actually made.
I think it also needs to be remembered that while a bayonet is alright as a one vs. one weapon, it's not designed to be used properly in a closed order formation - you need some elbow room to employ it properly. You don't get issued a shield along with it as ancient Greeks did, and it isn't long enough to keep enemies at bay in most circumstances (Zulus at Rorke's Drift being an exception, since the short dagger Shaka made the Impi carry actually had LESS reach than a Martini-Henry with a bayonet, and the Zulus didn't throw the daggers, contrary to movies). Therefore I have to strongly disagree with Nosworthy about the effectiveness of the square against cavalry. Unlike what "Lord of the Rings" movies depict, horses will not charge home against a wall of pikes, and while turning your formation into a wall of bayonets is pretty useless in most circumstances it's great if the enemy has a ton of cavalry and nothing else. This tactic worked for the British at Waterloo when Ney threw his cavalry at them without waiting for any artillery or infantry support.
I have always been intrigued about what happens when a bunch of horses come at a mass of pointy stuff, and there are instances where cavalrymen went up against determined spearmen and still managed to win(mostly medieval and ancient battles). I read in the comments of one(one of Kings and Generals) video something about intentionally blinding the horse just before it went near the line of pikes, so it can't control itself and its momentum could be enough to physically make a gap in the lines.
Or just dismount and/or kill several people in the front, a state of panic and several people running about could be enough for horses to jump into and this gap would further spread to make a tear in the formation. 'Horses fear spears' doesn't explain the instances when they didn't.
" Unlike what "Lord of the Rings" movies depict, horses will not charge home against a wall of pikes, " --- I can literally cite several sources that prove otherwise. It really depends on the time period as the quality of horse training was "fluctuating". Even horses trained by modern mounted police have to past a final test in which they have to charge and break through a huge sheet of paper to test if they will run into whatever the policeman wants. I worked with horses myself also in the reenactment and I can assure you our horses have no problems running into pike formations.
@@kamilszadkowski8864 Yes but the punctured lung won't be favorable for the horse's stamina during the fight.
_standing remarkably close (given that they all had rifles by the 1860s) and blasting away at each other for long periods of time_
That says a lot of bad things about the accuracy of their *rifle* fire...
@@bobuscesar2534 Horses can be sacrificed for the victory. In fact, if you compare casualties of horses to casualties of cavalrymen you'll see a big difference between the two. Sometimes as much as 60% of horses in some units were either killed or wounded. For shock cavalry it's enough to break the enemy formation, light cavalry or other horsemen will do the rest.
The Column that you showed is known as an Attack Column. It is wider then a Marching Column which are practically just lines turned 90 degrees with different officer and NCO positions.These Marching Columns were used to move troops around, mostly outside of battle. The Attack Column was used during battle when units had to move around the battlefield and/or advance quickly on the enemy.
Napoleon/ Empire total war players:
Years of academy training not watsed!
I went 50-12 in online matches coz i used old tactics they would report me for cheating😏
Im haunted by your pronunciation of column
Yup....
I'm ever more haunted by his pronounciation of "Règlement du 1er (Premier (first)) Août" XD
I'm haunted by your spelling of it.
@@skepticalbadger oh no i realised.
I had the save exact thought. He isn't even saying it "wrong" persay, just the inflection of the word is odd.
Imagine the embarassment while telling the general that your platoon suffers from premature evolleyation :D
but what was he actually trying to say tho?
@@tonysong7721 Shooting too early - What? I meant the muskets, why are you all laughing?
9:40 I recall that Britain was one of the few countries rich enough to give its recruits live fire training.
I love it how you make soviet womble's picture to show "free roaming 'soldier' taking potshot". lmao
"my enemis are many, my equals are none"
Well maybe he shouldn't have made so many enemies and he might not have ended up a total failure
mjmw99 Your problably living in a country where the body of laws are based on his legislation and ideas, talk about a total failure...
"In the shade of olive trees they said Italy could never be conquered."
@@Defferleffer "In the land of Pharaohs and Kings, they said Egypt could never be humbled"
@@mjmw99 gets called a total failure, introduced the metric system, the Napoleonic civil code, was indirectly responsible for finding the Rosetta Stone, among many other things I can't be arsed to list, and is still hailed today as one of the greatest military strategists to have lived.
This is one of my greatest areas of interest. Thank you so much for making this video! I can't think of any criticisms. But I might add a few extra points on top of what you've said.
First there are some differences between a particular nation's doctrine and what they actually did on the battlefield. For example, by doctrine the British were also supposed to form in three ranks. But they typically decided that two ranks were better. I have also heard that they would sometimes form in four ranks to provide some extra depth when preparing to make or receive a charge.
By doctrine soldiers in the third rank of a french formation were not supposed to fire, but were supposed to load weapons for the front two ranks and generally provide a reserve. In practice the third rank almost never behaved in that way, preferring instead to join in the action and fire their weapons with the rest of the formation. By stepping to the side they could generally fire safely without hitting members of the first rank, but there were noticeably elevated friendly fire casualties in the French army from first rankers being shot in the back by third rankers, which could be one reason that the British tended to favor two ranks.
Smoothbore muskets were indeed very inaccurate by modern standards. But it is worth mentioning that just HOW inaccurate they were is usually overestimated in the modern popular imagination. With a modern rifle it is not unreasonable to expect a skilled marksman to consistently hit a man sized target at 300 meters. Obviously that is a completely unachievable feat for a musket. But a skilled marksman with a smoothbore musket can expect to consistently hit a man sized target at 70 meters (3/4 of a football field). To put it in more scientific terms the MOA (minute of angle, one MOA is 1/60th of a degree) that I've been able to find for smoothbore muskets seems to range from about 24-36 (compared to about 2-4 for a modern rifle, the moon has an average MOA as seen from Earth of about 30, so that makes a good visual queue for how accurate a musket is). While that isn't impressive by modern standards it is a hell of a lot more accurate than many people tend to assume. And it's accurate enough that the accuracy of the user will be the primary determiner of battlefield accuracy, although inaccurate enough that the weapon will be the primary determiner of shooting range accuracy. Marksmanship tests from the time reveal that then, as well as with every other time period, there was a vast gulf between accuracy on a shooting range and accuracy on a battlefield (where more psychological factors are present to interfere with good marksmanship).
Something to add on to the accuracy of muskets, I remember hearing from somewhere (and if I can remember the source, I will post it) that another reason muskets performed so "poorly" in the field was also due to a normal person's lack of desire to kill someone they don't know. If I remember correctly, a test performed by the Prussians where they lined up a platoon of line infantry and fired at a cloth target, which was roughly the size and shape of another platoon of line infantry, and actually received pretty decent results - probably close to the accuracy you mentioned. However, when this was compared with known battle statistics, the casualty rates weren't nearly as high. It was likely to do with the reason I mentioned before (how the average soldier didn't have a great particular desire to kill someone they didn't know), but obviously combat stresses could play a part in it too.
@@sgtrpcommand3778 Yes, this is part of something even modern armies struggle with. Interviews with soldiers after WW2 found that most soldiers never shot to kill, often intentionally missing. It seems that most people aren't willing to intentionally take another's life when confronted with the opportunity. I wouldn't be surprised if this accounted for the majority in the difference between battlefield casualty rates and average marksmanship on a range. Modern armies try to solve this by making the task of shooting down an enemy "target" repetitive and automatic.
But there are other potential psychological factors that might help account for the huge disparity between battlefield accuracy and marksmanship on a peaceful shooting range. Another factor is that marksmanship fundamentals really do seem to go out of the window for many people when they are under severe stress or time pressure. Even when the shooter knows they are perfectly safe actually. If personal anecdotes may be admitted as evidence I went from a crack shot to shooting wildly all over the screen after being taken by surprise in an EST (Engagement Skills Trainer, sortof a big video game where you shoot at a giant movie screen).
@@sgtrpcommand3778 source is Lindybeige ;)
@@sgtrpcommand3778 I think that's bullshit. Of course accuracy will be higher in a non-life threatening training situation. Imagine spending all that time loading a musket in the first rank while you're getting shot at. Plenty of opportunities for mistakes, and you probably would want to fire your musket as quickly as possible. Soldiers would always rather kill than be killed. No normal person would intentionally miss the person who is trying to shoot them. Those statistics about most soldiers in WW2 not shooting to kill are just nonsense. I think the survey makers failed to account for suppressing fire and other factors.
Very interesting video. I actually made a pretty in-depth Napoleon light infantry tactics video if anyone wants to check it out
One of your best presentations to date, IMO.
Been binging your videos for a good week now.
I have a friend who wrote the book Fighting Means Killing, on the American Civil War. He noted as well that bayonet charges rarely resulted in hand to hand combat, but one side would withdraw before the charge concluded.
As a student of yours I really appreciate the sources you put in and I feel as if your videos are mor than enough for me to have an overview of a subject I may or may not want to learn more about. Thank you very much for the videos and source information!!
I really like your videos. Very informative, well-researched, insightful and entertaining. Thanks for the great content!
Super gemacht, mega interessantes Thema, und gut recherchiert! Viel Erfolg mit dem Kanal, Geschichte muss einer breiteren Masse zugänglich gemacht werden :)
when he said “revolutionary” the first time i knew i was in for it. subtitles on. great video and historic info either way!
Informative and great vid, clear and very nicely illustrated...A fascinating military period, skirmishers begin to be so important!
I like your general approach to the videos and am enjoying the expanding subject matter away from exclusively WW2. I consider myself fairly knowledgeable on small arm but now realize that I am lacking in this time period. Thanks for opening the door for further resurch.
I freaking love this video bro
About the study on hand to hand combat and bayonettes, I worry this could be a case of survivorship bias. "Casualty" includes wounded and killed, and the study is by an army surgeon, so he would likely only see the people who make it to his field hospital. It also makes sense that a shot from a musket from a distance would be less likely to drop you there on the battlefield than a bayonette to the chest, so a soldier who had been shot would be much more likely to reach Dr Larrey than someone who got bayonetted.
You make awesome videos! I'm glad to see more Napoleonic material! Thanks!
This is just... Gorgeous! Beautiful video with a beautiful explanation, thanks!
Now we only need to cover the artillery! Thank you for the great content!
"Premature Evolleyation"
I thought you were supposed to be a serious channel... and here you have me giggling like a teenager.
Also: -50% fat on Light Infantry...
xD
I had to look it up to make sure 'evolleyation' wasn't a word. Goddamnit, I'm dying xD
Funny
The pronunciation is woeful - thank God it's not just me noticing
James Hally Well, English isn’t his first language, so I give him a little more grace in that regard. I mean, he bothered to learn it in the first place, so kudos to him.
but what was he actually trying to say tho?
This is one of the best presentation of the subject. Excellent work. Thku
"an average of 2 round a minute should be assumed"
Sean Bean breathing intensifies
the french were famous for their furious bayonet charges, and used it a lot, and they did get such a reputation that later on most of their enemies fled when charged. certainly if they had no time to aim/fire at the incoming charge (due to poor visibility/battle smoke/fog)
one minor correction you might want to consider:
A lot of the British documents I have found and American seem both to say three ranks
The French ones, including from Jomini and Napoleon's own Maxims, say two.
other than that, this video is spot on
Always look forward to your videos brother
Napoleon was in no way "crazy" and he was an exceptional military campaigner. He had an amazing way of picking effective corps commanders and organizing his armies.
He's a pretty amazing character, really.
The only thing that was particularly crazy about Napoleon was his Ego and his trust in the men under him.
Such as when he was offered peace in exchange for giving up the majority of his non-French speaking territories while retaining several French speaking ones that were not originally a part of France. This was likely to avoid the necessity of marching into France where Napoleon could be expected to fight more battles in person.
From a pragmatic standpoint he could've used the peace time to shore up his economy and expand his war ravaged army. Instead he declined and the alliance invalided France and shipped him off to Elba.
Another example could be found at Waterloo when he literally _took a nap_ in the middle of the battle. In fact it was during this nap when certain Field Marshal charged the cavalry without infantry support.
Great commander horrible diplomat.
@@simonnachreiner8380 I dont think his diplomacy skill was that bad. He was a non Royal non Religious military man in a Revolutionist nation. In such circumstance, trying to make friends out of the arrogant European Royalties was simply a waste of time, they were his destined enemy.
Moreover, peace treaty means nothing without the Power to back it up. If you think the European coallition would just sign a favourable peace treaty then let him have the time and resource to rebuild his economy and invincible army, you are really naive. Signing a Peace Treaty in unfavourable condition for Napoleon would simply mean choosing a slow but sure death over a risky but oppotunistic War.
@@simonnachreiner8380 I think napoleon had IBS or something… some sort of medical condition that caused him to take a break at Waterloo and at other points in time. I know I’ve heard something similar one time before and it seems to make sense to me. He was so driven and hyper productive then at times out of no where he just “takes a nap”.. very strange and it makes me think there must have been some explainable reason beyond such a clear mistake
@@gsoe2132 actually I'm pretty sure it was the Early symptoms of stomach cancer seeing as that was what eventually killed him. Could have been chronic ulcers too as those can turn into stomach cancer.
He was an exceptional battle field commander but often pathetic campaigner. It may vary but his distrust in his commanders is sometimes obvious. He had exceptional good armies until he ran out of them, not sure their quality was his own making. All in all a character you don't want as ennemy or friend
Very interesting. Light infantry, though often dismissed at the time, could be really effective depending on the terrain and conditions, and could be used for ambushing and harrasing the enemy on territories that they already considered "under control".
2:20 And the opposite is true, at least for Spain: according to the infantry regulations from 1807 (which were the basis for the infantry that fought the "Peninsular war"), each infantry company was required to learn how to act within open order and how to switch quickly depending on the situation.
6:04 On that battle there was also a show on formation changes and operational flexibility. The Spanish 4th division under Gen. Zaya found under attacks from two sides later on the battle due to the routing of said British brigade. They were able to hold the line (or better said lines) until their own cavalry (dragoons and "horse grenadiers") could arrive and turn on the French cavalry. Despite being about 42% of the forces in the allied side, the Spanish units only suffered about 23% of the casualties and were able to quickly adapt to the enemy attacks. BTW, the French on this battle used the mixed order.
It's amazing how different combinations of heavy/line infantry and light infantry with some mixtures of cavalry and artillery/heavy ranged was used in basically all known warefare for 3000 years until WW1, at which point that structure was completely eliminated and remade multiple times nearly every decade.
the hammer and the anvil, trusted tactic since the birth of organised warfare
Great material. Keep up good work
thank you for the information and making it simple
The intro quote is from my professor at Purdue 21 years ago.
You earned my like with "premature evolleycation."
Very informative and easy to follow video. Thank you kindly for making and sharing it.
Excellent series!
Lol'd at the Soviet Womble at 11:55. Nice little reference.
That made my day, haha!
Free roaming soldiers taking potshots... sounds like zf
2:00 Provoke Premature Evolleyation.... Yes, it takes a long time to reload.
Merci beaucoup, c'était passionnant et très instructif !!
Nice video! About the third rank in a Line formation. The usual drill was for them to hold fire (or even reload muskets for the front ranks, but this was only theoretical) but in practice many inexperienced and poorly drilled units had people from the third rank get excited and start firing on their own. Quite often even hitting the very fingers and hands of the men in the first line, trying to reload.
*takes notes*
Hmm yes I will use this in my Mount and Blade Napoleonic wars battles.
I'm here because the Austrians and Brits are kicking my ass in Napoleon: Total War! I'm thankful I've found this content.
An excellent summation Sir, even quoting the Prussian experiments that I see so rarely ever emntioned
Currently working on a board game about Napoleonic tactics, very helpful video!
I wonder if the testimony of Larrey about bayonets might be slightly biased. As a surgeon, he had to take care of survivors. Hand to hand combat, when it occurred, probably resulted in more deadly outcomes. I don't know if we have any data to test my hypothesis. But it seems to me that in a melee, you are in a better position to finish your opponent. And you also have better incentive to do so, because of a more immediate danger.
However, the fact that ordinary soldiers avoid melee and fly before it occurs makes perfect sense.
Can a poorly trained conscript be expected to stab down on a cowering human with a substantial (but not life threatening) injury to finish him off? Lindybeige has made a good video on this "shoot to kill" mentality (obviously not shooting in this instance, the principle is the same).
@@rat_thrower5604 Only in a state of excitation due to an imminent danger. Even ordinary people can become ferocious when cornered. They are not "themselves" any longer. The thing is that most people will avoid that situation and flee before the shock.
It is much more difficult, obviously, to kill in cold blood.
@@rat_thrower5604 I also wonder about the nature of the wounds. Which weapon makes the worst hole in a human body? The bullet or the bayonet? I suppose there is no straight answer to this question.
@@stanislaskowalski7461 a trapped opponent is potentially much more dangerous, yes, but if they've taken a bayonet to the leg and are out for the count, I can't imagine a 19th century infantryman finding it necessary to finish him off. I don't think they had the same level of bayonet training that can be expected from WW2 an onwards.
In regards to wounds, it has to be musket balls. If you get stabbed in the leg, unless if cuts an artery you're fine, and even then you can be saved. If a musket ball hits your leg, you've lost your leg. Similar to the torso - a musket ball will punch through you, taking half of you out and bringing in dirt and clothing and everything that shouldn't be inside you. A stab might hit something vital, but it wouldn't completely obliterate it.
Just to be clear I am in no way an authority, not sure if I expressed that I'm basing this purely on what makes sense to me and not any evidence or wound reviews.
What about an episode about Terico formations or pike and shot?
It'd basically be the same thing, minus skirmishers. The shot would continue till one side withdrew or pushed, at which the Push of Pikes would literally be the same as instances with bayonet charges - one side would give way before most of the time.
Gordon Goldsteinburg No it wasn’t like that
@@su_morenito_1948 a pike and shot formation of the dutch army after the reform was of continues fire only if it where like 8 shots at a time it was continuously they just added a crap ton of depth to the unit and the first guy shot ran back reloaded and by the time he was reloaded he can shoot again. with pike in the middle to support and where the shot can hide in. if i remember correctly the shot depth was like 16 or 18 guys to
Excellent video. Thanks. Cheers.
Another interesting video on your channel. I am really looking for more 👍
Nice video. Ier means 1er = premier = first in french (7:30)
For some reason i read the title as NEOLITHIC infantry tactics.....imagine the surprise!
That would be an interesting topic to learn about. But unfortunately, records from that era are rather lacking.
@@lunatickoala LOL! True that!
Love your icons
Great information. It dispels a lot of the movie heroics.
Interesting to note that the Rifle was invented by accident, and not to address the musket's innacuracy. It was to address the fouling of the smoothbore barrel of the musket. At first, straight groves were cut to give the powder residue a place to go when a new ball was rammed down, using a wad of cork as a gas seal. Then a guy found out turning the barrel while cutting the grooves made the process easier for some reason, giving them the helical shape typical of rifling. He then found out his musket was particularly more accurate. The tale says that a bishop went to see the new invention, demonstrated against a normal smootbore musket loaded with silver balls, marked with a cross and blessed by his holyness. The rifle outperformed the holy musket and the bishop regarded it as some machination of the devil.
Anyways, scholars started studying the phenomena immediately. They soon found out a combination of aerodynamic and gyroscopic factors gave the spin stablization it's accuracy.
" demonstrated against a normal smootbore musket loaded with silver balls, marked with a cross and blessed by his holyness. The rifle outperformed the holy musket and the bishop regarded it as some machination of the devil." BWAHAHHAHAHHA !!!!
@@bulacomunistu8727 Well, we could say all the rifles and muskets and weapon are tools of the devil. The tools designed for killing.
So the bishops musket with silver balls were also machinations of devil.
And a bishop isn't 'his holyness'. They need forgiveness themselves also. He should be a servant of the holyness - which is only God. If the bishop isn't serving holyness, well... what or whom is he serving then?
@@timomastosalo " Well, we could say all the rifles and muskets and weapon are tools of the devil. The tools designed for killing." Bullshit.You can use firearms to hunt.Or to defend yourself.Or simply have fun(see competitive shooting).
The rest is irrelevant,I'm not religious.You're wasting your breath on me with that.
@@bulacomunistu8727 hunting isnt killing?
@@bulacomunistu8727 how many shitstains have you slain now?
One very big factor that is overlooked in determining the actual use and effectiveness of bayonets, is that surgeons treated so few bayonets wounds. BUT. This is a case of not seeing the forest because of the trees. When bayonets get used, the wounds they cause combined with the ferocity of close combat means that there are very few wounded who survive to reach the surgeons. It would take the autopsy of nearly every body on the battlefield to know what killed who. Not a thing that was possible after a major battle.
man the quality of your vidioes are mind boggling,i think you teach better than military academies of some countries
Nice I love these.
Pretty good overview, but there's one more thing it should have said, that a whole lot of people get wrong about Napoleonic warfare. The attack column was mainly used with low-grade troops, such as green recruits and conscripts. It's not a particularly effective formation - maneuverable lines of firepower had been used to defeat cumbersome blocks of troops since Maurice of Nassau at least. During the 18th century, when armies were smaller and more professional, columns or other "block" formations were hardly ever used, even by the ultra-offensive army of Carolus Rex. Napoleonic conscripts, however, often lacked the training and discipline to fight effectively in lines. Bunching them into attack columns was not some radical innovation, it was simply making the best out of poor soldier material. Keeping a block somewhat together is easier than keeping a thin line in order, and said block improves morale by giving the troops a feeling of safety in numbers.
Which is why, in Napoleon's Mixed Order groups, higher-grade troops would fight in lines and greener troops in columns.
Someone here with MiB Mind erasing technology, this makes me wanting to read Sharpes again.
What a great channel. I've learned so much
Glad to hear it!
Masterful. Thank you
If you like in-depth military history videos, consider supporting me:
paypal.me/mhvis --- patreon.com/mhv/ --- www.subscribestar.com/mhv
The U in "column" its pronounced like the U in "Gollum" (from LOTR).
Other than that, sexy video my friend.
Military History Visualized Can you do more napoleonic topics? Like Why where starfords shaped that whay?
Oh thank you for that video. I'm a huge fan of games like Empire Total War that sparked my interest in military tactics of that time. I didn't know where to start to read. Now I have a list of books to read. :>
I think cavalry would have operated differently than they would have in the middle ages. Because formations were relatively shallow (ie. 3 men deep vs. 10-30, like in a medieval formation), cavalry might not have had to worry about taking a formation that would plow through. I don't see something like a wedge working as well; so maybe they staggered out their charge - they would gradually cut into the enemy formation at an oblique angle, with one group of cavalry charging at a time. Biting in, and then riding away, while the next group of cavalry charges in, repeating this until the order rotated back to the first group of cavalry (having reformed, and moved into position, maybe with some time to rest as the leader surveys the carnage) charging again, repeating and trampling over fallen infantry all the while, group after group, until the infantry line is broken and running.
If the infantry form square, cavalry might still try to break through with a wedge, which might have protected horses in the middle from reactive fire of the infantry (reason Matt Easton detailed for square), while they're able to charge in, hoping to break through the bayonets and dead or wounded bodies that are under hoof.
@@haytxa911 Do I gotta make throat noises while I'm doing it?
Please do a comparison of napoleonic/revolutionary armies as opposed to the campaigns of fredrick the great.
Also, i feel the minée ball deserves a video as it revolutionized warfare.
It would be better said "minée cartridge", it was the cartridge which was the main deal that revolutionized warfare.
Excellent video. Thanks for the schooling
Good video - very informative!
Much of this can also be used to explain American Civil War combat, although combat was transitioning, especially in the last two years of the War, into the combat more commonly associated with World War 1.
"Column". Say it with me: KAH-löm. Rhymes with "fahren" (I know some German) At 7:19 (shock from the columns) you pronounced it almost correctly!
That aside, great video and excellent channel! I very much like the design of the icons
Sometimes I wonder why the bow or crossbows didn't return in this era. Even just as a surprise weapon.
- the infantry was mostly umarmoured and even low poundage bows would have been effective
- bows have faster reload times
- bows are more accurate by the capabilities of the weapon alone than a musket
- black powder as limited, volatile resource is avoided
- no smoke, less noise= better aim and sight and easier to command a unit
- even if training takes up precious time the mentioned field tactics do as well and it wouldn't negate bowmen as special troop segments
- the reach of a bow is comparable
- indirect volley fire in combination with muskets is very much possible
Muskets have a 200m direct effective range, you simply do not beat that with a bow, the wounds are also incredibly more gruesome and hard to deal with
And as you said, a bow require extensive training to use, decades of it to be proficient in it, it is simply not worth the effort for so little in result, indirect fire is also extremely inefficient unless the enemy is pinned somewhere, which in this era only happens if your cavalry is involved
A child can load aim and fire a musket, a simple metal tube, an arbalet is still inferior to it in that it is more complicated to produce/maintain and has less range and penetration
Firearms of that time are just that superior, there is a reason why every country abandoned everything they had known since centuries in favour of those
It's war, logistics, range and volume of fire wins everything, not young adult novel protagonists
By the time of Napoleon, institutional knowledge of military archery had mostly been lost. The ease of training gunpowder units trumped archery.
Crossbows require almost no training.
They did!!! Just not in Europe. Qing China continued to use crossbows and bows until very very late into the century! The crucial issue is that bows are not as potent a psychological weapon as guns.
The Chinese empire use bow and arrow up until losing to the British in opium war. Though for different reason, the ruling Manchu class hate guns as the previous dynasty utterly annihilate their prided cavalry with 16th century muskets and got their kings killed by artillery. As a result, the conqueror Manchu banned firearms to properly control their mainly rebellious Han population. And they aren’t even that good with their bow and arrows as well. Look up opium war and see them get humiliated by more advanced guns 200 years after their first humiliation
these videos are soooo helpful for writers. thank you so much
I as looking for a video that would actually explain the tactics of these battles for quite some time now with little success
so thank you for doing this bro
Glad it helped!
True Fact: Bayonets are one of those devices everyone throughout history keeps misjudging their usefulness or declare being obsolete, until they actually go through a war without using one. Suddenly they learn why bayonets are still relevant. There have been cases of people in other cultures opting to not own one and decide to give their men actual melee weapons. Like the rest they learn during a war you can't switch to a melee weapon fast enough sometimes and it is enough of a split second making them vulnerable for getting hit. Yes it does happen.
Bayonets is what you use when you can't carry a normal actual melee large weapon all the time, you don't want wast too much time switching to your melee weapon you already have out of fear leaving yourself vulnerable for a few milliseconds (Yes. It is enough to kill you in war.), or in situations where a person wants to be prepared for everything moving in a place when it is close quarters. Having a bayonet means you don't have to fiddle with holding a knife while reloading upon jumping into a fortified area. You have more freedom. When you also jump in a place where you instantly have to go melee in some situations and shoot. You are basically making a melee weapon and gun hybrid. Just like real hybrids they aren't perfect or best as a gun or melee weapons. It's being able to switch fighting and shooting very quickly and your hands are more free is what makes it advantageous. The guy with is rifle but with no bayonet would have to use the but of his gun to strike you. That's like 1 or 2 seconds spent flipping it around to strike you when you can spend literally no time just thrusting your bayonet. You might say why not use his barrel? Yeah.. he'll use that... but they are warned of possibly damaging it if done so, making them vulnerable being unable to shoot. The only thing you might do is parry with it. Notice this makes them in a defensive mode while the other withe bayonet is in offensive mode when they manage to meet up. That's definitely has some advantages. Even if it isn't the person attacking I guarantee you has a higher moral since he is attacking first, has a split second opportunity to kill him, and the other guy has no bayonet.
Here an interresting video of probably one of the last charge with a "baïonnette", the assault on the Vrbanja bridge 1995. czcams.com/video/PAPox1A3F6U/video.html
Did troops generally run towards the enemy during bayonet charges or procede towards them in a calm, orderly fashion?
Thx for the video sir
Great video
The bayonet charge, because of course "they don't like it up 'em".
" ..Hey Sergeant! ..What about taking these Halberds..? " - The typical response to small-arms and ammunition shortages in the 1790's
11:50 Sovietwomble strategy vid when
"The bayonet decides the battle". If you consider it, even lacking the actual hand to hand bloodfest, it probably was true. If the line got mowed down mid charge, quite decisive. If the opposing line broke ranks and ran like schoolgirls, equally decisive. Actual bodycount can be quite secondary to the effectiveness of a tactic in the grand scheme of the battle.
Mal wieder ein tolles Video! Grüße nach Österreich!
didn't Wellington use squares against the Napoleon at the battle of Waterloo? If I remember correctly, they were used against French cavalry charge just behind the hill, so they were protected against artillery or infantry.
As I understand it, Ney was in charge at that point of the battle rather than Napoleon, and he was basically a cavalry general. He sent the cav in but neglected to support with infantry.
@@daletrecartin1563 chances are neither Ney nor Napoleon ordered that charge and it was unordered. Andrew Roberts asserts as much anyway
@@lovablesnowman Andrew Roberts seems a bit of a Napoleon apologist.
Pretty sure the French had quick moving horse artillery that pounded the British squares in between cavalry charges. Seems the cavalry lost heart before the infantry squares didn, and a cavalry colonel deserted to the Allies and warned them about the advance of the Guard.
@@rat_thrower5604 No artillery was sent in support of Ney's charge.
It was indeed Ney's idea to charge as he thought the allies were retreating.
The squares seems to have been effective.
-Waterloo, the true story of four days, three armies and three battles by Bernard Cornwell
@@jonathanallard2128 However, as the French first wave withdrew utterly exhausted, the artillery bombardment opened up again. And once the horses had recovered, Ney's cavalry returned again and again to attack the increasingly battered allied squares.
Peter and Dan Snow, The Battle of Waterloo.
However that seems to be just the grand battery and not any horse artillery.
At 12:05, is that a picture of Soviet Womble?
There is apparently a far greater overlap between fans of MHV and SovietWomble than I had expected.
Good work.big fan of you
Fascinating 👍
Closest thing to the actual tactics of time period on gaming is Napoleon Total war 3 mod, but the vanilla itself is very bugged and often cannot be realistic on grand scale of things. I do believe that Empire and Napoleon should be revamped with better features and better combat system.
A revamp is not nearly enough. I love those but when you compare them to more recent titles is just embarrassing. Empire 2 is long overdue, especially considering the kind of bullshit they have been creating (I mean, Warhammer? Really?).
Gabriel Sáenz let’s hope that Empire 2 will have Napoleon as a Campaign expansion. However, Victoria will be more likely to be the next title.
@@republicempire446 You know, everybody says Victoria, but when Fall of the Samurai came out (which is my favorite to this day, because I love the industrial era warfare) all the medieval age fanboys were crying about it. That it wasn't fun because battles were all about artillery and there was no use for tactics. Then you look at the kinds of games they've been releasing since then and you get the feeling they've been avoiding firearms like the plague. So, I'm not so positive about the prospects of a Victoria Total War.
To me the dream would be a game that starts in 1492 and ends in 1900 and spans the entire world (kind of like Europa Universalis but with battles instead of the excessive micromanagement).
No way CA will ever do anything like this. As much as I love Total War series the battles in it are far from realistic and CA is actually making them less and less realistic with new games.
Kamil Szadkowski three Kingdoms is the next title, but it plays just like the historical fiction novel except records mode plays it more historical than fantasy romance feature.
7:12
Du hast dich vertippt, es heißt eigentlich "ordre mixte", und nicht "odre mixtre"
Schönes Video, danke, daß du es machtest :)
( 7:30
Übrigens, "1er août" ist "premier août", was wie "prömie (r)ut" auf deutsch ausgesprochen sein sollte)
nazi
Danke
Cartman
Gunther Rothenberg! Great book! I have read it many times.
Excellent! Bravo!!
One thing I would add although this is to do with cannons (being for of a naval geek myself), although I imagine muskets would have been loaded like this too. Quite often (more often than not) round shot would be double or triple shotted so they would be 2 or 3 cannon balls being fired at once. However this reduced range.
What was done was buck&ball, which was 3 or so small buckshot pellets loaded with one round ball. The US and some other countries used cartridges like that at various points in time, although most major European armies didn't use it anywhere near as much as the US did. As for double or triple-shotting with actual full sized ball... Wasn't really done due to excessive recoil. Muskets had heavy enough recoil with just one ball and buck&ball really was as much as people were willing to subject themselves to in a prolonged engagement.
Another reason as to why it was pretty much never done is because armies almost always had prefabricated paper cartridges containing ball and powder. It would be counterproductive to waste a second cartridge just for the ball and to throw away the powder. Just too much hassle and too complex for the high stress environment of combat.
Another reason would be that smoothbore muskets were actually decent accurate out to something like 200m. Double shotting would definitely significantly reduce accuracy even further and lead to very little, if any gain in overall effectiveness for a significant decrease in rate of fire.
your pronounciation of column kept distracting me from teh topic xD good video! quality information delivery! keep it up.
thx man great vid