"French Light Infantry Companies pre-1800" Topic
25 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please don't make fun of others' membernames.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Historical Wargaming in General Message Board Back to the 19th Century Painting Guides Message Board Back to the 19th Century Discussion Message Board Back to the 18th Century Painting Guides Message Board Back to the 18th Century Discussion Message Board Back to the Napoleonic Discussion Message Board
Areas of InterestGeneral 18th Century Napoleonic 19th Century
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Top-Rated Ruleset
Featured Showcase ArticleIf snowflakes resemble snowy bees, then who rules over the snowflakes?
Featured Profile Article
|
Please sign in to your membership account, or, if you are not yet a member, please sign up for your free membership account.
Pikeman Nasty | 02 Nov 2015 12:20 p.m. PST |
Currently painting a unit of French Revolutionary/Early Line Infantry. Noticed that within the set, there are French Voltiguers (http://www.plasticsoldierreview.com/Review.aspx?id=1173). On my reading around their uniforms, there is little indication whether within line regiments, voltiguers during this earlier period still wore the earlier carabinier uniform (blue uniform and breeches, white piping, red facing), the same uniform, but with yellow/green facings as later light infantry (https://www.pinterest.com/pin/410883165979084978/, link or just merely the pointed normal line uniform, as obviously from 1800 onward, light infantry wore shakos. Basically what I'm trying to say (if any of this made sense), is what clothing pattern did French light companies in line units use pre-shako and pre-1806 issue? |
Eclipsing Binaries | 02 Nov 2015 12:31 p.m. PST |
I'm not sure if the Ligne demi-brigades always had light companies. Sources seem to differ. I included them in my units for a bit of colour – same uniform as the grenadiers but with the different colour plumes etc. Legere demi-brigades wore the blue uniform and breeches, with either the bicorne or mirleton, then the early shako with side plume. |
McLaddie | 02 Nov 2015 1:45 p.m. PST |
Voltigeur companies as part of the French Ligne battalion didn't appear until 1803-4. Until then only the Legere had voltigeurs, the term for the infantry rather than fusilier. Just like Grenadier for Ligne and Carabinier for Legere. Certainly ligne demi-brigades could and did deploy skirmishers by company, as well as set numbers of 'sharpshooters' [@6-12 per company] volunteers and third-rank too. Bill |
Brechtel198 | 02 Nov 2015 1:51 p.m. PST |
The term for the non-elite companies in French light infantry regiments was 'chasseurs', not voltigeurs. Voltigeurs were authorized by Napoleon for the light infantry regiments in March 1804. The line infantry regiments were authorized to form them in September 1805. The old Royal Army had regimental chasseur companies which were definitely a forerunner of the voltigeurs and after the beginning of the Revolution and the wars that came with it Coignet, Teste, and Thiebault all mention that many regiments had light companies which were termed eclaireurs, but they were not 'official.' They were formed between 1796 and 1801. Napoleon made the practice official for all of the infantry regiments, line or light as noted above. |
McLaddie | 02 Nov 2015 10:40 p.m. PST |
The term for the non-elite companies in French light infantry regiments was 'chasseurs', not voltigeurs.The old Royal Army had regimental chasseur companies which were definitely a forerunner of the voltigeurs and after the beginning of the Revolution and the wars that came with it Coignet, Teste, and Thiebault all mention that many regiments had light companies which were termed eclaireurs, but they were not 'official.' They were formed between 1796 and 1801. I was speaking about before French practices before 1804 Before then designated light infantry in legere and ligne battalions were called several things including voltigeurs and Chasseurs. The 12 light battalions created by the French just before the Revolution were called Chasseur battalions. In fact, Napoleon suggests several names then in use for the light infantry companies in the December 1803 orders that I believe you have quoted recentely: -Napoleon to Berthier, 22 December 1803'There will be in every battalion of light infantry regiments a company called the 'mounted company' or 'mobile company' or 'partisan company,' or some other name of this sort. This company will always be the third in the battalion, counting the grenadier company as the first. It will be composed of well-built and vigorous men, of the smallest height. No noncommissioned officer or soldier should be more than four feet eleven inches tall and the officers should not exceed five feet. [French measure] It will be armed with a lighter fusil than the dragoon's fusil and will be drilled in firing. Officers and noncommissioned officers will be armed with rifled carbines. The men of these companies will be practiced in following the cavalry at a trot, holding sometimes the boot of the rider and sometimes the mane of the horse, and in mounting briskly and jumping behind the rider, so that he thus can rapidly be transported by the cavalry. These companies will always be complete and maintained on a war footing…They will be taken from among those men exempted from the conscription because they are too short.' Those unofficial light companies, where they existed between 1789 and 1804 were called eclaireurs, chasseurs, voltigeurs, carabiniers, and even grenadiers-legere and several other terms depending on the units' commanders. They were, after all, 'not official'. |
von Winterfeldt | 02 Nov 2015 11:52 p.m. PST |
in the French Revolution at some point the demi brigades did form eclaireur units, made up of volunteers and capable soldiers to do the usual skirmishing (see the three types of skirmishers, tirailleurs de marche, de bataille et de grande bande) – they had no official distinctions but were ad hoc war time formations serving during a campaign with fixrd comanders. They could, as well as the grenadiers be formed in special "elite" battalions or even bigger tactical formations as well. "La formation des compagnies de tirailleurs remonte à cette époque, chaque bataillon avait la sienne, composée d'hommes de choix et de bonne volonté : tous les officiers ambitionnèrent d'en faire partie, afin d'avoir plus d'occasions d'approcher l'ennemie et d'acquérir de l'honneur. Les tirailleurs ne cessèrent pas de compter dans l'effectif de leurs compagnies, et leur réunion n'avait bien qu'en présence de l'ennemi. Souvenirs Militaires et Intimes du Général Vte de Pelleport, tome Premier, Paris 1857 p. 47 (67 google books)" Here some details about an officers who did command such a formation "CH AMORIN (Vital-Joachim , baron),général de brigade, naquit à Bonnelles, en l'Ile de France (actuellement département de Seine-et-Oise) , le 16 août 1775. Il entra au service comme soldat dans le 7° régiment d'infanterie de ligne , le 25 décembre 1788; y fut fait caporal, le 27 avril 1792 , et fourrier, le 27 mai suivant. Il fit la campagne de cette dernière, année en Savoie et à l'armée des Pyrénées Orientales. Il passa adjudant-sous-officier au 6° bataillon de PI-Iérault, le 11 juillet 1795, et y devint sous-lieutenant, le 11 octobre suivant. Employé à l'armée des Pyrénées-Orientales, il se trouva, le 50 avril 1794 , à la bataille de Boulon; entra, lui troisième , dans la redoute dite de Montesquiou , s‘empara des canons qui la défendaient, et en dirigea le feu sur l'ennemi (1). Il fut blessé d'un coup de feu dans cette action brillante , et obtint le grade de capitaine, sur le champ de bataille. Il passa en cette qualité dans le 8' bataillon de la Cóte-d'0r, le 8 septembre suivant, et devint capitaine de grenadiers à la 12‘ demi-brigade d'infanterie de ligne, où il fut incorporé, le 21 avril 1796. Employé, la même année, à Parmée d'Italie, dans la division du général Dallemagne, il se distingua, le 24 août, à Borgo-Forte , où il entra , après avoir forcé la ligne ennemie à la tète-des grenadiers et des éclaireurs de la 12° demi-brigade de ligne. Le grade de chef de bataillon fut demandé pour lui par le général de division Girardon(1),comme récompense de la bravoure qu'il avait déployée en cette occasion. Chamorin refusa ce grade , préférant alors commander les braves grenadiers de son corps. Il continua de servirà Parmée d'Italie, en 1797, 1798 et 1799. En décembre 1798, il fit partie de Pexpédition de Circeo dans l'Etat ecclésiastique; entra le premier, à la tôle des grenadiers polonais , dans la ville de Frossinone , prise (Passant, et se conduisit dans cette action avec une telle bravoure , que le grade de chef de bataillon fut demandé une seconde fois pour lui par le général Girardon (a). Il se trouva , le 14 iuiu‘ 1800 , à la bataille de Marengo, s'y distingua particulièrement, et y eut a chevaux tués sous lui. Il passa capitaine au 6' régiment de hussards, le 20 du même mois. Il fut blessé,le 25 décembre suivant, au passage du Mincio, et n'en continua pas moins de rester à la tète des tirailleurs qu'il commandait. La bravoure qu'il montra en cette occasion futcitée avec éloges par le général Dupont, et luivalut le grade-de chef Œescadron qu'il obtint sur le champ de bataille. Il compta en cette qualitédans le 1 x‘ régimcntde hussards, à partirdu me. me iour. En 1801, il fut attaché comme aide-de-camp auge'néral Watrin ," Inofficial – official?? "5045. — ARRÊTÉ. Paris. 13 thermidor an VIII (1" août 1800). ARTICLE 1"". — Les grenadiers et éclaireurs des 5", 6', 35°, 64° de ligne et 26' légère seront campés entre Beauvais et Amiens. Les compagnies de grenadiers et d'éclaireurs de chaque demi—brigade formeront un seul bataillon. . It is a but like standing orders, though you cannot find it in official regualtion text books, CiCs seemingly did have their own ideas and made "official" laws regarding the units they did command Brech is completly wrong therefore, the term was not Chasseurs (that were the "center" companies of demi brigades légères – but as McLaddie points out eclaireurs, or tirailleurs, and they were regarded as elite, picked men with picked officers. Please also note, when the voltigeur companies for the line infantry became very official for the whole army, it happened during the campaign – when the units were in the field, so most likley no yellow collars and other distinctions for those earler Voltigeurs, other their Fusilier uniform and equipment till after the 1805 campaign did end |
Green Tiger | 03 Nov 2015 2:22 a.m. PST |
Irrespective of what they were called all French troops were able to Skirmish, they received no specialist training in this but there was more difficulty in the early period (immediately post amalgam) getting them to not skirmish. |
McLaddie | 03 Nov 2015 7:55 a.m. PST |
Irrespective of what they were called all French troops were able to Skirmish, they received no specialist training in this but there was more difficulty in the early period (immediately post amalgam) getting them to not skirmish. GT: Who didn't receive specialist training? What early period are you talking about? |
McLaddie | 03 Nov 2015 8:05 a.m. PST |
Please also note, when the voltigeur companies for the line infantry became very official for the whole army, it happened during the campaign – when the units were in the field, so most likley no yellow collars and other distinctions for those earler Voltigeurs, other their Fusilier uniform and equipment till after the 1805 campaign did end. von Winterfeldt: This is interesting. What is your source[s] for that? |
von Winterfeldt | 03 Nov 2015 10:32 a.m. PST |
You can read it in the memoires, In case I remember correctly for example Fezensac. |
McLaddie | 03 Nov 2015 12:11 p.m. PST |
|
Green Tiger | 04 Nov 2015 2:51 a.m. PST |
McLaddie – The French Infantry certainly 1793-99 received no specialist light infantry training. Most allied sources believed that they were facing specialist light infantry troops. Surtees (later a rifleman) for example says that at the Helder the opposition were riflemen, trained to work individually and to pick targets. It seems however that the majority of the French troops in this campaign particularly were recent conscripts who would have received only rudimentary training in musketry and would have skirmished by instinct rather than training. |
McLaddie | 04 Nov 2015 8:34 a.m. PST |
The French Infantry certainly 1793-99 received no specialist light infantry training. Green Tiger: I think you are painting with a very broad bush with that six year period. I know that training did occur for various troops during that time. In your example for instance, even though the majority of French troops were recent conscripts, that doesn't mean that is who Surtees could have been facing. Most French skirmishers during this time, whether ligne or legere, were picked men, and often the most experienced. So Surtees could well have faced trained specialists, while the majority of the troops were recent conscripts. In 1813, the Austrians had ths same problem with their Army of Bohemia. Large numbers of recent recruits and no experienced light infantry, so they transferred light and grenadier battalions in response. |
Green Tiger | 04 Nov 2015 8:52 a.m. PST |
McLaddie I am indeed and I accept that in some formations probably by 1795 a high degree of training and discipline had been implemented but there is no evidence of any specialist light infantry training. The levels of effectiveness ebbed and flowed, it must be remembered they were effectively disposable armies as the French suffered numerous costly defeats but conscripted 200- 500, 000 men a year maintaining effectiveness and specialist training under such circumstances would have been almost impossible. In the majority of battles in this period the French deployed large amounts of skirmishers "clouds" is the usual term I am not aware of them having any light infantry specialists let alone them specifically deploying them alone. Such was the low level of training in many French formations that they were barely able to form line and so skirmishing was their only option. Duhesme refers to them as an army of skirmishers! An officer writing about the same battle as Surtees rated the French pretty poorly saying that they were overturned by the most amateurish shambolic attack he had ever witnessed and that they were the scrapings of the barrel kept in the field only by generous helpings of gin so it is largely down to perception. |
McLaddie | 04 Nov 2015 6:01 p.m. PST |
I am indeed and I accept that in some formations probably by 1795 a high degree of training and discipline had been implemented but there is no evidence of any specialist light infantry training. Green Tiger All that you note is true to some extent. I just know there is evidence that training did take place. What kind of evidence would you want to see regarding this training? The French army between 1792 and 1800 was a wild mix of recruits and regulars, trained and untrained, experienced and inexperienced troops. Surtees and the other officer could well both be right having faced different troops, different training in the same battle…. and the Allies were fond of using the phrase of 'clouds of skirmishers', sometimes for actions where the French actually didn't send out more than a fraction of their infantry to skirmish… and the French used the term for some Allied actions too… Actually, maintaining effectiveness and specialist training is seen in several activities by the French military and the Allies for that matter: 1. Selecting particular men 2. Putting them in specific specialist units like chasseurs, eclaires and legere. 3. Publishing light infantry manuals of various shorts 4. Generals giving instructions on how to pick and organize skirmishers in line infantry units 5. Combat uses and effectiveness supporting the idea that these picked men were considered, used and operated as specialists. 6. And of course, statements and descriptions about the training. We aren't necessarily raving about the quality or the uniformity of that training, but there is evidence that it did take place during that time. |
von Winterfeldt | 05 Nov 2015 12:41 a.m. PST |
About uniform distinctions there is a good discussion at napoleon-series.org so maybe a green plume and even green epaulettes would be possible, depending on the unit and the amount of money invested in such temporary formations. As usual good post by McLaddie above. Looking how Schauenbourg trained his division in a lot of very intricate tactcial manoeuvres is total opposition of Duhesmes statement, the Armée du Nord may fight differently to the Armée d'Italie |
Green Tiger | 05 Nov 2015 2:26 a.m. PST |
MCLaddie Those who have written about the French army in this period (they are a pretty select group)Lynn, Griffith, Colin and Duhesme – are all pretty firm that there was no skirmish training and no regulations. Some Generals would issue edicts as to who should skirmish and when but never how and tehse Genearls rarely stayed in post for long. There is evidence (in the form of complaints form commanding officers) that it was usually the more experienced men that were sent to skirmish, presumably because they were more likely to come back and in time it was recognised that some men were more suited to skirmishing which led eventually specialists. The number of skirmishers deployed varied according to circumstance. The French point at that terrain in the Netherlands was particularly suited to light infantry fighting so tended to do more of it. At Hondeschoote pretty much the whole army deployed as skirmishers. Amusingly (as you point out)at the battle Surtees talks about, one of the French sources describes the British as a "cloud of skirmishers" but he and the officer were facing the same troops (they were brigaded together and may even have been in the same unit – the identity of the officer is unclear). Yes Von Winterfeldt there were often considerable differences between the different French armies and indeed in those armies at different times. The trend is generally of improvement 1792-4, disrupted by the injection of vast amounts of conscripts 1795-6 and whilst there were veteran formations by 1799, the way they were used meant they suffered high levels of attrition and the situation facing France in its year of crisis meant that large numbers of Demi-Brigades were distinctly second string. |
Brownbear | 05 Nov 2015 8:08 a.m. PST |
The Batavian troops received in 1796 an specific exercition reglement. I suppose it is translated from French into dutch. So there must be a French reglement of earlier date. |
McLaddie | 07 Nov 2015 7:27 a.m. PST |
Green Tiger: I still think you are painting with a very broad brush when you state that The French Infantry certainly 1793-99 received no specialist light infantry training and then say that Lynn, Griffith, Colin and Duhesme support this view. I think you are looking at 1793 and extending it to the end of the decade. Lynn was only studying the Armee du Nord in 1793-4. Colin and Duhesme both state that 1. Many of the French were untrained in 1793-4 and that were mere mobs when skirmishing. Those three do not say there was not training, particularly after the first years of the Revolution. Griffith doesn't say that either. He does say: 1. Each French army had training camps established in 1793, each camps' effectiveness rather inadequate given the huge intake of recruits, but training did exist. 2. In 1793 the trained chasseur battalions were reformed into 14 legere demi-brigades in 2/1793. By 1795 there were thirty against 100 ligne demi-brigades, or one out of four enlisted men. 3. Griffith quotes Lynn's quote of General Le Couturier arguing that light infantry work was instinctual rather than drilled. What he doesn't mention that Couturier was arguing against training that was in process. 4. He also mentions on p. 211 that during this time "Formally-designated 'light' units (whether whole demi-brigades or smaller groupings) were definitely preferred for skirmish duties when there was a choice, and they enjoyed a certain elite status in the eyes of the generals (Lynn, p.266) First, Griffith fails to follow up with why light troops were considered elite. On page 266, Lynn gives what he feels is a 'good example' of these opinions: An order of 11 December 1793 read in part: "Colonel Lenoble, commander of the Chasseurs de la Meuse, is authorized to take himself to Verdun so as to choose there among the battalions of conscripts the best trained, the most robust, and those most suited to service as chasseurs. So not only were light infantry units considered important, given the best men, but also the best trained. Then Griffith adds on the same page 211: :but it is not all that obvious that they were actually trained any differently from the other infantry. Very few French manuals or training projects for skirmishing that survive from this period are all private productions intended for use within their authors' own units, leading us to suppose that most regiments lacked even those informal curricula. This is what surprises me. I am not sure why this should lead Griffith to such a supposition. 'During this period' ALL nations' military operated the very same way. Most all drill manuals and instructions were privately created works. Both Griffith and Lynn mention several instructions in light infantry practice written by Revolutionary generals. However, here are some more examples: 1. Brunswick, the Prussian commander wrote the drill manual and instructions for the use of the 3rd rank for his regiment in 1791, which was then required of the Prussian forces under his command in 1793. In fact, there were hundreds of drill manuals privately printed and used in the Prussian army at this time. 2. Paget, in drilling his hussar brigade in 1795 had several privately published works in French, Prussian and Spanish patched together for the use in instructing his troopers. 3. Moore, in training light infantry in 1807 at Shorncliffe trained the troops using privately published light infantry manuals: Rottemburg [Hanover], Larry [French and Prussian], Cooper [British] and many others, ALL privately published. Rottemburg's published work was later accepted as 'regulation' as was Dundas's drill, first published privately 4. Ney in 1803 and Davout in 1811 both wrote instructions for their commands. What remains of Davout's set of instructions deal with ligne skirmish practices. The fact is that very few of ANY of these privately printed drill manuals survive from ANY of the armies. So, to suppose what he does, Griffith can't be aware of this fact. Commanders and officers Privately publishing drill manuals for the use of particular units or for public consumption was a very common practice throughout the Revolution and Napoleonic wars. Even so, the French government published two books dealing with light infantry instruction in the early years of the Revolution: 1. The 1792 Provisional Regulations 2. Instruction destinee aux troupes legeres et aux officiers qui servant dans less avant-postes, redigee sur un instruction de Frederic II a ses officiers de cavlary, 1794 [though it was first published in French, 1780] Griffith writes: Duhesme seemed to accept that if the soldiers were poorly trained they would always degenerate into mobs, regardless of whether they were good Republicans or servile monarchists; but if they werer well trained as specialised light infantry they could fight just as effectively for Prussians or Austrians as they did for the New France. So, where the light infantry of Republican France ever trained during the years 1792-1800. I think there is a lot of evidence that training was attempted and from the conclusions of Duhesme and others, the French did well as skirmishers in the latter half of the decade. We can kibbitz about how effective the training was or how much was actually delivered, but I don't think anyone can reasonably argue that NO training took place between the years 1792-1800. Certainly Lynn, Griffith, Duhesme and Colin are not saying any such thing. |
McLaddie | 07 Nov 2015 7:28 a.m. PST |
Green Tiger: I still think you are painting with a very broad brush when you state that The French Infantry certainly 1793-99 received no specialist light infantry training and then say that Lynn, Griffith, Colin and Duhesme support this view. I think you are looking at 1793 and extending it to the end of the decade. Lynn was only studying the Armee du Nord in 1793-4. Colin and Duhesme both state that 1. Many of the French were untrained in 1793-4 and that were mere mobs when skirmishing. Those three do not say there was not training, particularly after the first years of the Revolution. Griffith doesn't say that either. He does say: 1. Each French army had training camps established in 1793, each camps' effectiveness rather inadequate given the huge intake of recruits, but training did exist. 2. In 1793 the trained chasseur battalions were reformed into 14 legere demi-brigades in 2/1793. By 1795 there were thirty against 100 ligne demi-brigades, or one out of four enlisted men. 3. Griffith quotes Lynn's quote of General Le Couturier arguing that light infantry work was instinctual rather than drilled. What he doesn't mention that Couturier was arguing against training that was in process. 4. He also mentions on p. 211 that during this time "Formally-designated 'light' units (whether whole demi-brigades or smaller groupings) were definitely preferred for skirmish duties when there was a choice, and they enjoyed a certain elite status in the eyes of the generals (Lynn, p.266) First, Griffith fails to follow up with why light troops were considered elite. On page 266, Lynn gives what he feels is a 'good example' of these opinions: An order of 11 December 1793 read in part: "Colonel Lenoble, commander of the Chasseurs de la Meuse, is authorized to take himself to Verdun so as to choose there among the battalions of conscripts the best trained, the most robust, and those most suited to service as chasseurs. So not only were light infantry units considered important, given the best men, but also the best trained. Then Griffith adds on the same page 211: :but it is not all that obvious that they were actually trained any differently from the other infantry. Very few French manuals or training projects for skirmishing that survive from this period are all private productions intended for use within their authors' own units, leading us to suppose that most regiments lacked even those informal curricula. This is what surprises me. I am not sure why this should lead Griffith to such a supposition. 'During this period' ALL nations' military operated the very same way. Most all drill manuals and instructions were privately created works. Both Griffith and Lynn mention several instructions in light infantry practice written by Revolutionary generals. However, here are some more examples: 1. Brunswick, the Prussian commander wrote the drill manual and instructions for the use of the 3rd rank for his regiment in 1791, which was then required of the Prussian forces under his command in 1793. In fact, there were hundreds of drill manuals privately printed and used in the Prussian army at this time.** 2. Paget, in drilling his hussar brigade in 1795 had several privately published works in French, Prussian and Spanish patched together for the use in instructing his troopers.** 3. Moore, in training light infantry in 1807 at Shorncliffe trained the troops using privately published light infantry manuals: Rottemburg [Hanover], Larry [French and Prussian], Cooper [British] and many others, ALL privately published. Rottemburg's published work was later accepted as 'regulation' as was Dundas's drill, first published privately.** 4. Ney in 1803 and Davout in 1811 both wrote instructions for their commands. What remains of Davout's set of instructions deal with ligne skirmish practices.** [**Note that all these were written and used when there did exist officially accepted army regulations for those different nations.] The fact is that very few of ANY of these privately printed drill manuals survive from ANY of the armies. So, to suppose what he does, Griffith can't be aware of this fact. Commanders and officers Privately publishing drill manuals for the use of particular units or for public consumption was a very common practice throughout the Revolution and Napoleonic wars. Even so, the French government published two books dealing with light infantry instruction in the early years of the Revolution: 1. The 1792 Provisional Regulations 2. Instruction destinee aux troupes legeres et aux officiers qui servant dans less avant-postes, redigee sur un instruction de Frederic II a ses officiers de cavlary, 1794 [though it was first published in French, 1780] Griffith writes: Duhesme seemed to accept that if the soldiers were poorly trained they would always degenerate into mobs, regardless of whether they were good Republicans or servile monarchists; but if they werer well trained as specialised light infantry they could fight just as effectively for Prussians or Austrians as they did for the New France. So, where the light infantry of Republican France ever trained during the years 1792-1800. I think there is a lot of evidence that training was attempted and from the conclusions of Duhesme and others, the French did well as skirmishers in the latter half of the decade. We can kibbitz about how effective the training was or how much was actually delivered, but I don't think anyone can reasonably argue that NO training took place between the years 1792-1800. Certainly Lynn, Griffith, Duhesme and Colin are not saying any such thing. |
Chad47 | 07 Nov 2015 9:42 a.m. PST |
Did not the chaseurs from the old Royal army continues through into the republican era? If so then there would have certainly been some trained units/men present in early republican armies. Chad |
McLaddie | 07 Nov 2015 1:47 p.m. PST |
Hmmm. Not sure why that post repeated. Chad47: Yes they did, including continuing to wear their Royalist uniforms for some time, even after being combined into Legere demi-brigades. And it stands to reason that they would have been trained since being formed in 1789 IIRC. |
Green Tiger | 09 Nov 2015 2:26 a.m. PST |
McLadie Your argument is well formed – maybe worth posting twice? I think you can (and you do)make a case that there was some training at various points and that this increased as period went on. I would still maintain that the army was growing too quickly for this to be widespread or effective and that any benefits would have been hard to discern until after 1799 when things started to stabilise? |
von Winterfeldt | 09 Nov 2015 4:08 a.m. PST |
The army pretty much stabilised in 1795 – the army also was coninually training, doing "small wars" or what we would say manoeuvres in modern times, using blanks – and opposing generals to command them – also there is the example of general Schauenburg how well he drilled his division in 1793. |
McLaddie | 10 Nov 2015 12:34 p.m. PST |
Yes, Lynn does go through @100 engagements of the Army of the North during 1793-4 and found that column AND line formations were regularly used as well as skirmish actions other than mob pushes. So, some training was going on, or at least trained soldiers were involved. Green Tiger: Twice? I don't think so, but thanks. I'm relieved that it makes sense--twice. The whole issue of skirmishing at this time was so wrapped up in politics and the Revolutionary rhetoric that it sometimes clouds the actual battlefield actions. The Revolutionary government spoke in almost religious terms about the "New Man", the pinnacle of Enlightenment philosophy, freed from all the absolutism arbitrary restrictions and church domination. So, when officers of the period talk about it on either side, it often has nothing to do with actual tactics… Supposedly, the tirailleur actions of massed soldiery, "the tactics of the New Man" instinctual genius of the common man instead of trained, soulless automatons of the monarchies' armies, was a major propaganda theme. French General St.Cyr states that the mass of untrained soldiers skirmishing worked in 1793-4 because of the unexpected element of the tactics, but by 1795 the Allies had figured out how to handle it and it was not used afterward. [I don't have the quote in front of me, but I can get it, if interested.] The whole issue of skirmishing from 1750 through the 19th century is a fascinating issue. |
|