Honour Forums

Discuss the Honour system.

1. EagleSixFive
   Member

   "Strategos
   From a tournament player point of view, this tactic offers an advantage too juicy to forfeit it just for the sake of Historicity. On the other hand, I can not recall a single example of an infantry unit falling back and charging inmediately at the same enemy unit."

   A good example of using a combination of falling back (retrograde movement) and firepower is described in Mike Robertson's book Battle of Quatre Bras. Where, the 79th Regiment were hotly defending the heights of Bati-saint-Bernard against mass French infantry. Several times the 79th charged forward pushing the French back over the Gemioncourt Stream. Then, as they came under renewed heavy French attack they were forced to give ground, regrouping at the rallying point then charging again.

   Most Napoleonic gamers I have ever met emphatically state that this or that situation never happened during the wars. I guarantee they just haven't found the reference to it yet! 8-)

   Posted 2 years ago #

2. Pickton
   Member

   "Chris,

   you may want to try Nosworthy's "Battle Tactics of Napoleon and his enemies". I don't think the description from the Sharpe novels of column versus line really holds up, coming from Oman's original description. David Chandler's essays have a nice history of the line versus column debate. Massed firepower was rarely responsible for the defeat of attacks in column, it does come down to a test of wills." - ND Perry

   No offence intended, but I wonder if I have read the same eye witness accounts (French and British) over the years. Just a few examples:
   "On rushed the Fusilers and the Fifty Third and delivered such a fire that in a few minutes the enemy melted away..." - Talavera

   "General Ruffin had nearly surmounted all the difficulties of the ground, when a fire burst forth that checked his advance. Sir Arthur ordered a charge. With one tremendous shout, the right wing of the TwentyNinth and the entire battalion of the Forty Eigth, rushed like a torrent down, bayonetting and sweeping back the enemy..." -Talavera

   "Despite all my efforts the head of my column fell away to the right. I could not get my troops to deploy; disorder set in. At this moment a ball went through my left arm, breaking it. I was swept away in the flight." General Foy at Bussaco

   Then Albuera where a Fusilier Colonel described what he saw, "The French faced us at about thirty or forty paces. During the closest part of the action I saw their officers endeavouring to deploy their columns, but all to no purpose. For as soon as a third of the company got out they would immediately run back to be covered by the front of their column."

   It would be possible to go on and on, but suffice to say that the people alive at the time had even more firm opinions on the effect of musketry. An attempt to arm some British home defence volunteers with Pikes met with universal outrage ( a similar mistake in 1942 was equally unpopular). No doubt the French soldiers in the following ranks of the French columns at Albuera or Waterloo would have had an opinion on the effectiveness of musket fire too.

   Modern historians seem to have a need to debunk old ideas. Perhaps that's how the books get sold? Who can say. The reality seems closer to being that the British stopped the on-coming column, or disrupted it, with fire and followed up with a swingeing bayonet charge. It might come down to a test of wills, but a hail of musket balls cutting down your front ranks must dent the will to continue somewhat...

   regards

   Pickton

   Posted 2 years ago #

3. Pickton
   Member

   I like the Fall back Rule as it stands. It fits in well with historic examples. The easiest to find being that strange combination of raw /reliable that is the British Guard Infantry. Take their reaction at Waterloo when they find themselves in disorder. Fall back and Rally. Then again at Talavera where they pursued a falling back French unit, pursued it too far, were disrupted by French artillery and fell back through the Forty Eighth (in support)to rally when under charge. It all reads like a La Salle battle report

   regards

   Pickton

   Posted 2 years ago #

4. NDPerry
   Member

   Pickton,

   interestingly enough your conclusion "... the British stopped the on-coming column, or disrupted it, with fire and followed up with a swingeing bayonet charge ..." is consistent with Nosworthy's view. Its just that only one or two volleys were fired before the countercharge, not an extended 4 to 5 volleys per minute as implied by Oman (and the Sharpe novels).

   The psychological impact of one or two volleys, held until the last moment, followed by a vigorous charge broke the column's "will", not attrition by a lengthy firefight. Albuera is an exception - an extended firefight. The Ruffin and Foy quotes support this view - brief intense close range fire with an immediate charge.

   Nigel.

   Posted 2 years ago #

5. Pickton
   Member

   Even going down to Sharpe I am pretty sure that he advocates six vollies to stop the column and then a charge.

   However, Read again and I put examples up where the firepower defeated the column. A particular one being the Fusiliers at Albuera. Having taken 50% losses they were hardly in a position to force the issue at bayonet point and when the column gave way followed up firing. Hence the column was defeated not by excess numbers, or combined arms, but by firepower. Everything in a battle is a test of will.

   I did read Nosworthy's book and i found the book irritating at times for this all to modern habit of attaching more importance to modern perceived thought etc. I started looking at Military history at 10 years of age and 52 years later I have learned that the 'modern thought' changes all the time and often in line with the popular Napoleonic rules about at the time.
   Chandler is a much better read than Nosworthy in my opinion, but I still prefer the eye witness accounts.

   The truth? Sometimes the British saw off column by sustained fire, sometimes by a sudden volley followed by a bayonet charge. We have the attestment of people who were there on both sides. Mr Nosworthy has one severe disadvantage. He was never present at a Napoleonic battle.

   However, The British do seem to have seen that if they could halt an oncoming column, A brisk charge could rout it.

   regards

   pickton

   Posted 2 years ago #

6. NDPerry
   Member

   Pickton,

   we seem to be in violent agreement. I agree eyewitness accounts are preferable, but the more obscure can be rather inaccessible - hence the utility of authors like Chandler and Nosworthy.

   I would point out, however, that the Nosworthy/Chandler "view" is not modern revisionism, as the alternate (to Oman) interpretation of eyewitness accounts was well known to Oman's contemporaries (another Oxford historian, Hillaire Belloc I believe).

   Nigel.

   Posted 2 years ago #

7. cam_millar
   Member

   The other issue in the line v column debate is if you think (which I don't) the French operated mainly in column and the British in line routinely stopped them with firepower, why was this not happening in the Continent? The Austrian and Prussians operating in line with a doctrine around firepower which failed utterly in 1805 and 1806. What was different?

   Wargame rules have handled this in different ways over time:

   1) The British Royal Machine Gun Corp approach. The British just fire better, faster and with a better musket.

   2) Better Blockstock. The British were just more manly and not afraid of the French. So Austrian and Prussians not in line are shaken if a French column advances within 100 paces (spot the ruleset).

   3) Better Skirmishers. The Austrian and Prussians lacked effective skirmishers.

   All I take modern books by Noseworthy and Muir as saying is that the world was probably more complicated that wargamer myth.

   But one thing I liked in Nosworthy was the idea that the British doctrine (like the French) generally led to more decisive combats than the Austrian and Prussian doctrine in 1805/1806.

   But it was not a simple one dimensional thing - the French did not just operate in columns charging the enemy, nor the British just in line stopping the French by musketry. What the did depended on the circumstances and they had quite a bit of flexibility. But for both they tended to seek a decisive end to combat if possible - not just get into a firefight which could be indecisive.

   Cam

   Posted 2 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.