19th century tactics?

[roffelskates]

So... with the upcoming game Napoleon: Total War. And given the fairly realistic nature of stratagy and tactics of the total war series (not it's historical accuracy mind you) I would like to be familar with the tactics and stratagies of late 18th to early 19th century combat. Could any of you give me some general stratagies and battles of important tactical and stratigic value from the 19th century to study from?

[Rex290]

I'm not sure how Napoleon Total War will model the various military and tactical improvements made in that era, but here's a very rough overview.

But the most basic advice for that game, which applies equally to Empire Total War, is the concept of linear firepower. Armies were arranged in ranks of 3 to four and used volley fire at relatively close range to attrit the enemy and ultimately drive them back. So you want to keep your infantry units facing the enemy face on to present the most muskets and as such firepower in a concentrated manner to increase the chances of hitting the enemy. Muskets were usually worthless beyond 250 yards and it was not uncommon to hold the volley until almost point blank to maximize the shock factor. Infantry battallions would generally be deployed in a long line three to four ranks deep with a second line behind consisting of reserves.

Artillery was used for bombarding enemy positions to support an infantry attack and then use canister shot against infantry that moved into close range; as the century progressed (from 1700 to 1814 lets say) armies started having more and more pieces of artillery. In the beginning artillery was relatively immobile. By the end all armies had fast moving artillery consisting of light and medium guns moved by large teams of horses to support attacks and defences more effectively, increasing the firepower available to commanders. Artillery made great progress over the century in terms of doctrine, training, and basic equipment. In the beginning caliber and types of guns ranged wildly. As the years went on every major army adopted a system of gun types and thereby reducing the different types of ammunition required.

Cavalry usage was trickery. A frontal charge on infantry by cavalry was never done unless the cavalry were particularly bold or the infantry was disordered; generally it was preferred to use cavalry against infantry that was disordered or had a flank or rear presented to the horse. In game terms keep your cavalry on your flanks or behind your infantry line/lines to use against distracted enemy infantry or artillery.

Infantry defending aganist cavalry could form a square, solid or hollow, presenting a wall of bayonets outwards. A horse is a fairly sensible creature. They do not have any real inclination to charge into a wall of sharp objects; this usually prevents cavalry from ever breaking a square. Infantry would also hold back its volley until the last second when it would most disordered a cavalry charge. Besides forming a square infantry could remain in line and hold back its fire until the last second, which made cavalry charges on infantry rather troublesome. If infantry were disordered or or caught in a flank or rear they were incredibly vulnerable. This was another reason for maintaining a continuous front- to stop cavalry from getting beyond the infantry line.

In all cases firepower and tactics were of lesser importance to the quality and discipline of soldiers. Well drilled troops in high morale always performed better and would take more losses in battle which would mean defeat or victory since in many cases battles were long drawn out slugging matches between two armies. Eventually one side would consider the battle untenable and retreat. In the game more experienced troops will last long before they rout.

As I mentioned "shock" above in relation to infantry firepower good troops could take more "shock". So if an battallion of troops would still in rank after receiving a volley from point blank to deliver their OWN volley followed by a bayonet charge, they had a good chance of routing or forcing back the enemy.

Napoleon's army followed the same basic tactics but added quite a few. In the Old Regime soldiers were few and expensive. Under the Revolution and Napoleon where France was subject to universal conscription huge armies were regularly raised and maintained. Because quite often new french conscripts had very poor training they were deployed in mass aganist the enemy. Giant columns would be rushed at enemy positions and would break through just because they couldn't kill enough Frenchmen to drive them back. Normally, these blindly sacrificial tactics would have been unthinkable in the Old Regime, but with the Revolution a type of revolutionary feavor and nationalism made these tactics possible. Under the Old Regime soldiers were expensive, and under the Revolution and Napoleon's Empire soldiers were cheap, expendable since they were so easily replaced.

This page has several good articles on the subject matter. If you basically follow historical tactics you should do fine in the game. Also, I liked Empire Total War just because I could model in real time the tactics of the age of reason and get a better understanding of them.

Infantry Organization, Tactics and Combat : Line : Column : Square

Christopher Duffy's "The Military Experience in the Age of Reason" is a excellent source for the tactics of the Age of Reason (Which might be said to be 1650ish to 1798 when the French adopted a new system). "The First Total War" by David A. Bell is a good book that details the differences between the type of warfare conducted in the Age of Reason (or the Old Regime) and the Revolutionary and then Napoleonic Wars.

The Battle of Leipzig, "of the Nations" was the biggest battle in European history up until those fateful days. Its importance is its contrast between the early battles of the coalitions aganist France. In this battle the Allies had learned their lessons and fought aganist Napoleon himself with their reformed armies and beat the invincible Emperor.
http://napoleonistyka.atspace.com/Leipzig_battle.htm

Aspern-Essling is interesting as it has Archduke Charles with a largely antiqued Austrian Army fighting Napoleon to a frightening draw
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Aspern-Essling

Fontenoy was fought between the French army under Marshal de Saxe aganist the British, Dutch and Hannoverians. Essential Saxe deployed his troops in a line anchored by the village of Fontenoy. His infantry he entrenched and supported by building redoubts. The British weren't able to breakthrough, and were indeed compressed essentially into a giant deadly column where they suffered huge losses. Its one of the most important battles of the "Old Regime" type of warfare.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fontenoy

[roffelskates]

Thanks a lot. I'll study this and maybe get a leg up on all my friends.