Thoughts About the Horse & Musket Period

[vtsaogames]

A post about the evolution of tactics, weapons and such during this period is here.

An image that Blogger is suddenly stopping me from putting in the blog. Ga Pa!

It's never too late to have a happy childhood

[OotKust]

Hmm interesting.

You’ve not identified an audience, so its a general walk through the ‘era’. Good summary of the precursor machinations.

I wonder if any ‘new’ tactics actually were developed/ deployed in the era of the Empire. I’d lay money on the ‘spirit and swiftness’ of French deployments,  ie their cited ‘elan’, even at the run that created the most headaches for enemy, before battles commenced the serious part.

Forgive me for spotting:

“Note that Wellington, after seeing the trouble caused by French cavalry in the open terrain at Quatre Bras, went to 4 ranks deep at Waterloo.”

I’m not  Now aware that Wellington was at Quatre Bras, least of all when any French cavalry actions were being taken? But it has been 30 years since I studied the Brits- and my copy of “Wellingtons Despatches” is currently with the restorers, getting the split calf cover repaired to 1857 fitness!

He may have been given accounts of what happened, but in the shambles of a wet overnight retreat and gathering on the battlefield next day, would such detail have been discussed at all. Surely focus was primarily on not achieving the same on June 18th?

My understanding of Waterloo/ Mont St.Jean was that he deployed in 4 ranks to commit maximum effective man firepower for what men he had. I.e. he couldnt have deployed units in full line due to the geography of the site, but he could build a ‘wall of bodies bristling with firepower..
I believe it was also only the Brits infantry- none of the ‘allied’ troops were so disposed- due to their less than stellar nature?
cheers davew
*Edits and corrections* 19Jul24

Swinging from left to right no matter where the hobby goes!

[vtsaogames]

Wellington rode into Quatre Bras about 3 PM, as Perponcher’s division was being roughly handled. He was coming from his meeting with Blucher at Brye. Had the French known who he was, a troop of cavalry could have taken him. He was present for the rest of the battle. The 69th was ridden down. Their King’s color is in the Invalides, bright as new, whereas the flag of the 45th attached to Ewart’s eagle in the Scots Greys Museum in Edinburgh can only be identified as a tricolor from the plaque. It is solid tan, no hint of any other color. The 30th repelled the cavalry but were shot up by artillery while in square and driven back. Some lancers got into the 42nd’s square, killing the CO before the intruders were killed and the square secured. Wellington narrowly escaped Pire’s light cavalry during the battle. Several Dutch-Belgian battalions were ridden down, as was one of Brunswick troops. At least two batteries fell to French cavalry. He’d not had anything like that in the Peninsula, where the terrain was rougher. And horses died in job-lots even when no fighting was on.

 

I suppose if there was an intended audience, it would be gamers who think all horse & musket period is much the same. Didn’t give it that much thought. It is hot as Hades and after making  morning outdoor errands I sat in air conditioning and typed this rambling post.

 

As for French drill from the Revolution (and early Empire?), according to Brent Nosworthy (and the Lardies) they simplified battalion drill making some maneuvers faster, even when not done at a fast pace. It’s complex and likely to put me to sleep. Hmm, perhaps I should, get a good night’s sleep.

 

Last, if Wellington’s original orders for the 16th had been followed, there would have been no battle at Quatre Bras. Ney would have swept aside the corporal’s guard there while the Anglo-Dutch concentrated at Nivelles. Orange’s chief of staff Constant de Rebeque smelled a rat and suspected the French would try to wedge between the two Allied armies. He convinced the Prince of Orange to hold the crossroads with everything he could get. It almost wasn’t enough.

It's never too late to have a happy childhood

[Guy Farrish]

Interesting piece Vincent.

I have to ask – the four deep line at Waterloo- why?

I had no recollection of this – I rarely look for numbers of ranks in firing lines these days for a variety of reasons – but I resorted to the infernal Google  and found this on the Project Hougoumont pages:

 The staple infantry formation was therefore  the ‘line’ where the infantry were stretched out in a long thin line facing the enemy, usually only two or three ranks deep, although four ranks were used to stiffen the formation at Waterloo. This allowed most of the men in the battalion to bring their fire to bear on their opponents and maximised their firepower.

I can’t tell whether the second sentence ‘This’ refers to the two deep or four deep line. I know Oman (first version) would suggest the firepower is better from  two deep line – (musket counting ‘debate’ ensues) but I have in further searches based on this, found people quoting it to suggest the four deep at Waterloo improved firepower (whereas you go for the Oman 1 version). I suspect this is a misread of a poorly framed paragraph. (The Project, not yours).

Don’t stay up all  night over this as I am simply at a loose end for half an hour and indulging a niggle – but was this a general return to pre Dundas era formations? There is some suggestion that the new intake since the Peninsula veterans had gone or were in the Americas (sorry bout the White House) were relatively poorly trained and some battalions were in 4 deep for most of the campaign. I can see this as a morale/manoeuvre thing but not a firepower issue.

If this was a response to his impressions at Quatre Bras do you think Wellington would have had time to formulate the response, get the orders to change out to the units and have them successfully implemented in the retreat and positioning for Waterloo? Or was this, as suggested above ,something they were using anyway and perhaps QB was a mistaken use of 2 lines by experienced officers/ncos with new troops?

Just thinking aloud really.

 

Also – cavalry.

I think changes in horse breeding and training probably led to quite a few improvements and probably some unlooked for problems in cavalry during the eighteenth century – although this may be a British perspective with the introduction of the Arabian, Turk and Barb into the Thoroughbred racing lines. Arabian intermixing with native European horses was a big thing across Europe however, during the period. Prussia and Russia in particular established studs  – Austria probably started earlier with Ottoman Arabians from the 1680s invasions.

This supposedly gave better endurance and the English went wholeheartedly for stock improvements in their cavalry. Everywhere in Europe saw improvements in endurance and speed in horse flesh, changing what was expected of cavalry.

 

[vtsaogames]

Not all of the Peninsular veterans were in the New World. Lambert, who became army commander at New Orleans when Pakenham and all the other ranking officers were killed or wounded, was acting CO of the 6th Division at Waterloo, Cole being absent on his honeymoon. Several brigades of British Peninsular veterans were on hand. The veteran KGL provided two brigades of infantry, 4 regiments of cavalry and 3 artillery batteries.

 

Re the 4-rank line: I presume this was used after Wellington saw a number of units ridden down at Quatre Bras. Since standard British doctrine considered 2-rank line better for fire action, I fail to see how 4-ranks would improve firepower. But the Duke left no word on the issue that I’m aware of.

 

British cavalry were much better mounted than any Continental army, since they hadn’t had armies marching around stealing and on occasion buying every 4-legged creature in sight since 1792.  A captured Light Dragoon trooper’s horse was given to a French general in the Peninsula. Frank Chadwick opines that Brits rode mares, more spirited than the geldings ridden on the Continent. Cavalry on campaign wore horses out at a furious rate, even when not in the Iberian Peninsula. After our period, Custer was known in the west as a horse killer for his hard marches.

 

Philip Haythornwaite wrote an article in an old copy of the Courier. He thought the problem with undisciplined British cavalry pursuit was that they went into all-out charges at the gallop, essentially starting a stampede. This would also explain how hard the initial shock was, high speed and superior horseflesh combined. Some day I’ll wade through my old copies and find that issue. Charging at Everything is a book that argues the British cavalry didn’t always do that. I’m not convinced. Not always, but way too often. British infantry noted that when KGL cavalry galloped into camp it was time to grab your weapon. The unsaid corollary was that galloping British cavalry was just a display of high spirits.

 

OK, up from the keyboard and out of the house before the heat hits full blast.

It's never too late to have a happy childhood

[Ivan Sorensen]

Pure amateur here so I am just following the discussion. Thanks guys and thank you to the OP for doing up the article.

[OotKust]

vtsaogames wrote:

Wellington rode into Quatre Bras about 3 PM, as Perponcher’s division was being roughly handled.

Ok thanks for the correction. Long delayed memory lapse…

The only ‘Waterloo’ Ive read recently at all were PLDs two missives on Ney and Grouchy which while expanding to the ‘actions’, centred on the French staff. The report of an officer of Pictons Division gives recognition of Wellingtons presence. I shall correct my previous error humbly Sire!

“I fail to see how 4-ranks would improve firepower.”

Not firepower per se, but a much morally stronger Brit unit AND capable of sustained firepower. Kneeling was standard for ranks in square- if you can ‘double the line’ tactically, then very little further difference to ordering front ranks who may have already fired (or be told to reserve their fire) to kneel and allow the rear two ranks to fire over them.

Anyway…

Swinging from left to right no matter where the hobby goes!

[Guy Farrish]

I was not ( and am still not) sure whether we were talking about 4 rank squares or lines but it said line which felt odd if the worry was being run down by cavalry.

But hey ho , this is getting difficult to untangle.

I think 4 rank squares were pretty normal-ish anyway, whereas a 4 deep line is a doubling of standard Brit deployment at this time. I have a fairly negative view on the musket counting school of Napoleonic infantry close combat anyway. I can’t see why a four deep line would be better as you would be forming square in any case if cavalry were on the way and the two deep line covers more ground. Morale? Possibly but a square is a much better morale builder than a line.

[Aethelflaeda was framed]

Anchored flanks  and a dense battlefield meant that the 4 rank double line could be employed whereas squares would have left gaps. I have my doubts that it could do much more firing than the two or three rank lines.  Napoleon himself at St. Helena recognized that holding to the 3 rank line was a mistake in terms of fire power.

Too, i wonder if this ”four rank” line.  is really just  two lines separated by a slightly closer interval than the traditional deployment, meaning the reserve line is just much closer to the front: ten or twenty paces, and not the more normal 100-200.

Mick Hayman
Margate and New Orleans

[vtsaogames]

Love to post more, but a cold front (or less hot front) came through yesterday and the chance to cavort outside leads me away from the keyboard. Perhaps tomorrow…

 

No longer over 90 F (32 C) and most important, not so muggy. This weather would have felt hot back in June, but now it’s a godsend.

It's never too late to have a happy childhood

[OotKust]

Guy Farrish wrote:

I can’t see why a four deep line would be better as you would be forming square in any case if cavalry were on the way and the two deep line covers more ground.

Not to completely ruin Vincents fine work Guy [may be too late for that…] but aren’t you missing the point?
4 deep was exactly the reason [posited] at QB- so why not Mont St. Jean? Justification I felt was he wanted MORE Brits in the battle line, ergo 4 deep became easier to form square .

But squares would also, if on the front slopes, an artillery target par excellence- assuming the French knew they had to shoot direct and not attempt bounce (fail).

And cavalry that wasn’t charging but ‘walking to contact’ isn’t exactly the threat a mid-Summer open field is supposed to invite.

Having been there and stood on both sides of the battlefield- I would not want to face muskets at 750 yards, let alone a battery of supposed 80 guns… Ça peut sembler fou, mais je digresse…

Swinging from left to right no matter where the hobby goes!

[Guy Farrish]

Hi Dave, Sorry, I am confused now.

What point am I missing?

The bit from Vincent’s blog (worth reading everyone) that prompted my ramble was this:

Note that Wellington, after seeing the trouble caused by French cavalry in the open terrain at Quatre Bras, went to 4 ranks deep at Waterloo. Rules giving a firing bonus for two-rank formation need to be adjusted for that famous battle.

Not sure what you mean when you say

OotKust wrote:

4 deep was exactly the reason [posited] at QB- so why not Mont St. Jean? Justification I felt was he wanted MORE Brits in the battle line, ergo 4 deep became easier to form square .

The 4 deep (what? line/square?) was the reason for what at Quatre Bras?

The change implied in the quote is from 2 deep British, probably 3 deep other, to 4 deep at Waterloo.

I don’t understand how moving to a 4 deep (whatever) give you more Brits in the battle line?

As for forming square being easier and faster from a four deep line – possibly true. (other sources suggest the Brits had used 4 deep faces in their squares anyway but the transition from a 2 deep line may have been slightly more complicated).

PS -750yds? With c30 feet drop (feet not inches) at 300 yards with a normal powder load I’d be moderately sanguine against a Brown Bess or Charleville at 750 yards.

[Guy Farrish]

I’m presuming the trouble caused by the French cavalry at Quatre Bras is referring particularly to Halkett’s brigade being battered by Kellerman.

Several thoughts –

Was this open terrain? Part of the reason for the failure to form squares in time may have been due to the height and density of standing crops helping to mask the French advance/confuse officers about the distances involved. Crops had not been selectively bred for the short stem varieties we have now. Even in my lifetime wheat fields were places to get lost in if you were a child. Wheat grew to c6 feet tall and rye taller (rye dwarfing hybridisation lagged behind wheat).

The 33rd, 69th and 73rd all got into trouble, failing to form square, but the 69th suffered most. None of the three had been in the Peninsula. The average length of service of 69th privates was 3.5 years and the average age 21 with 25% aged 15-19.

The 30th did form square in time and repelled the cuirassiers. It had been in the Peninsula but not since 1813 as it had been in such bad condition that it was withdrawn to Jersey and later only took part in the Flanders campaign occupying gun positions on the Scheldt.

All four battalions were at Waterloo but amalgamated into 2 units– the 30th and 73rd  as one and the 69th and 33rd as another. Both in square between Hougoumont and La Haye Sainte. They lay down between repelling attacks to avoid cannon shot. The 30th/73rd  held but the 33rd/69th  ‘retired in confusion’ before reforming – argue amongst yourselves whether this constitutes a British square being ‘broken’.

I don’t know whether the fact they seem to have assumed square immediately meant they were 4 deep and stayed that way and whether that was unusual. I doubt it did anything to put more Brits in the line.

Did the whole British/Allied infantry receive orders to adopt a 4 deep line? Was this only those battalions? Was it really unusual to have a 4 deep square. The 1792 regulations assume a 3 deep line and a 3 deep square, both of which appear to have been ignored, with 2 deep lines and 4 deep squares the norm.

So what was going on between Quatre Bras and Waterloo? Anything? Nothing? Or is this perhaps a myth a bit like it was all the Prince of Orange’s fault?

[vtsaogames]

A short post – getting ready to host a game of Camden 1781 in a bit.

 

Kellermann’s charge was not the only thing at Quatre Bras. Pire’s light cavalry were very busy during the battle, riding down several Dutch-Belgian battalions and at least a couple batteries. Some of this was the aftermath of them defeating Merlen’s DB cavalry and later the Brunswick cavalry. They nearly caught Wellington himself at one point. He had to ride hard and seek shelter within a Highland square. They caused more mayhem than Wellington had seen on a Peninsular battlefield.

 

One account has the 69th beaten because the CO thought the square wouldn’t form fast enough and ordered a couple companies to form a line. The 42nd, in a similar situation, kept forming square and closed it while some of Pire’s cavalry were inside. They killed the CO of the 42nd.

 

I always assumed he specified a 4-deep line at Waterloo as a result. This formation is known as a reinforced line in wargame parlance. I do not not if that is what the Brits called it at the time. Brent Nosworthy would know, since he reads drill manuals, both English and French, and possibly some other languages. But I don’t think he haunts this forum. Too bad. And now away, to ready the game. I will eventually get back to this.

It's never too late to have a happy childhood

[Author]

Posts