British Guards (1 Viewer)

FirstLegion said:
It seems that your data might only deal with the major actions and not the minor battles as well. For more data, may I suggest the following resources:

Free, Excellent Resource. Napoleon Series Battle Listings - pretty comprehensive. Please note, I've postd it here without the top navigation frame.
http://www.napoleon-series.org/military/c_listings.html http://http://www.napoleon-series.org/military/c_listings.html

I'd be curiouse to see your completed spreadsheet after you plug in all of the battles listed at the Napoleon Series website.

Another one, that is even more comprehensive, is Digby Smith's Napoleonic Wars Data Book (Greenhill Publishing). It is exactly that, a MASSIVE set of lists of every battle and such fought during the period. Not really something that you read, but just a reference.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Greenhill-Napoleonic-Wars-Data-Book/dp/1853672769
Click to expand...
Thanks for the links Matt. Now that I am into this, I was hoping to reconcile the differences. I started with what is undoubtedly a more major battle list that had decent descriptions on numbers involved and summary of events but discovered it was missing some significant Peninsula battles, which I added from other sources. Then you posted your numbers so I added those battles and some more from 1813. In doing that I discovered the Napoleon-Series list you referenced which seems to have some many more but some that were indeed simply skirmishes between detached regiments or even companies. While interesting, I don't think we can count these for our purposes but there are undoubtedly some more that I should add.

Now I have about 120, including the Penisula. It seems Digby Smith has over 2000 with very minor engaugements so something between the two would seems more helpful for our discussion here. Query, what is the smallest battle Napoleon or Wellington would be engaged in? I am quessing the number will shake out somewhere south of 200. In any event don't worry, I was planning on running it by you went I made more progress.:cool:

The Napoleon-Series site is indeed great. I discovered it some time back but did not start with their battle list since for details, it is still a work in progress. I guess Digby still wants people to buy his compilation work.;):D I have read a number of the very well researched works there and in fact used a couple of those in that little exchange of information we had the other day. I have also been stocking up from their recommended books list. Now I guess I may have to buy the Digby Smith book; the library is getting larger by the day.:eek:
 
Spitfrnd said:
Query, what is the smallest battle Napoleon or Wellington would be engaged in?
Click to expand...

It's difficult to decide what makes up a battle or not. Often times the number of troops actually engaged in these minor affairs are very small, but the number of troops who could have been engaged is large but for one reason or another one army withdrew or what not. Does that count as a battle even if small but if it effects the strategic situation? Not sure. I think if you just use your best judgement you'll come up with something reasonable. I'm not sure what the smallest battle Napoleon or Wellington was engaged in - some of Napoleon's earlier battles were very small indeed (20-30k per side). Wellington's early Indian battles were even smaller than this (much smaller if I remember correctly). I think a rough minimum for inclusion would be 5k+ engaged per side, maybe 10k+. Anything smaller than that is probably just statistical noise.

I'll be very curious to see the final tally though!

Oh, for what its worth, save your money on Digby Smith's data book. He has other books out that you're far better off with. The Data book is just one of those books I bought because I used to buy them all. It's not something you can curl up with. In fact, this excercise you're doing right now is about the only use you'll get from it!

Matt
 
FirstLegion said:
It's difficult to decide what makes up a battle or not. Often times the number of troops actually engaged in these minor affairs are very small, but the number of troops who could have been engaged is large but for one reason or another one army withdrew or what not. Does that count as a battle even if small but if it effects the strategic situation? Not sure. I think if you just use your best judgement you'll come up with something reasonable. I'm not sure what the smallest battle Napoleon or Wellington was engaged in - some of Napoleon's earlier battles were very small indeed (20-30k per side). Wellington's early Indian battles were even smaller than this (much smaller if I remember correctly). I think a rough minimum for inclusion would be 5k+ engaged per side, maybe 10k+. Anything smaller than that is probably just statistical noise.

I'll be very curious to see the final tally though!

Oh, for what its worth, save your money on Digby Smith's data book. He has other books out that you're far better off with. The Data book is just one of those books I bought because I used to buy them all. It's not something you can curl up with. In fact, this excercise you're doing right now is about the only use you'll get from it!

Matt
Click to expand...
Yes I agree it is somewhat arbitrary where to draw the line but I was thinking 5 to 10K per side as well. Therein lies the rub. The list I started with, while incomplete had the virtue of giving the size of the forces involved. The Napoleon-Series list does not do this for many, if not most, battles. So you find yourself searching the battle name to see whether it is worth considering.:rolleyes: So that data book may be one of the few places where you can find that data. It does I take it have the commanders, unit strengths, order of battle and a brief note on each? If so, I may pick up a used one.
 
Spitfrnd said:
Yes I agree it is somewhat arbitrary where to draw the line but I was thinking 5 to 10K per side as well. Therein lies the rub. The list I started with, while incomplete had the virtue of giving the size of the forces involved. The Napoleon-Series list does not do this for many, if not most, battles. So you find yourself searching the battle name to see whether it is worth considering.:rolleyes: So that data book may be one of the few places where you can find that data. It does I take it have the commanders, unit strengths, order of battle and a brief note on each? If so, I may pick up a used one.
Click to expand...

It lists basic info about each battle, but not a unit by unit Order of Battle. I think more like commander, amount of troops by type (i.e. infantry/cavalry/etc), nationality, victor, and maybe a tiny synopsis. Really, I haven't looked at in about 5 years now at least I don't think. Interestingly enough, Digby isn't exactly pro-french in my experience, so a lot of the close ones he gives to the allies if I remember correctly!
 
FirstLegion said:
It lists basic info about each battle, but not a unit by unit Order of Battle. I think more like commander, amount of troops by type (i.e. infantry/cavalry/etc), nationality, victor, and maybe a tiny synopsis. Really, I haven't looked at in about 5 years now at least I don't think. Interestingly enough, Digby isn't exactly pro-french in my experience, so a lot of the close ones he gives to the allies if I remember correctly!
Click to expand...
No surprise, we all know who writes history.;):D Actually it is tricky to pick some of those and then you get into the issue of tactical versus strategic wins. My rule of thumb has been to use the tactical wins and if that is not clear, give it to the side who bled less.

I found from some reviews that Smith does give casualties so I went ahead and ordered one. At less than the 1/3 the cost of a British Guard I couldn't resist.
 
Latest Box arrived. Will try and attach some Photographs

Osymandius
 
British Guards and Artillery. Photography not in the same league as Matt P. Will continue adding to the collection with the intention of building a large square 2 deep not 3 as shown here defending against French Mounted units probably Currasiers as seen on workbench .

My first attempt at posting Photographs so please excuse any errors.

Have to say am delighted with my FL products welcome onboard all new collectors.



DSC03455.jpg

DSC03464.jpg
.

DSC03457.jpg
 
British Guards and Artillery. Photography not in the same league as Matt P. Will continue adding to the collection with the intention of building a large square 2 deep not 3 as shown here defending against French Mounted units probably Currasiers as seen on workbench .

My first attempt at posting Photographs so please excuse any errors.

Have to say am delighted with my FL products welcome onboard all new collectors.



DSC03455.jpg

DSC03464.jpg
.

DSC03457.jpg
 
Nice, very nice !!

Maybe I should start buying more British troops. I am so very tempted, however I need to stay focused.

King's Man
 
Matt,

While the new Russian troops are ideally suited for showing the Russian armies from 1812 till 1815, the available French troops are not. By the time of the Germany campaigns of 1813, the French Invasion campaign of 1814, and Waterloo the French troops would be wearing the Bardin habit-veste tunic. Will you be offering us French troops in these later uniforms at some point and can you let us know as to when?

An example of the 1812 Habit-veste:



I am very excited about making up displays of the1814 campaign.

King’s Man
 

Attachments

  • Armand-one.jpg
    Armand-one.jpg
    45 KB · Views: 182
King's Man said:
Matt,

While the new Russian troops are ideally suited for showing the Russian armies from 1812 till 1815, the available French troops are not. By the time of the Germany campaigns of 1813, the French Invasion campaign of 1814, and Waterloo the French troops would be wearing the Bardin habit-veste tunic. Will you be offering us French troops in these later uniforms at some point and can you let us know as to when?

An example of the 1812 Habit-veste:



I am very excited about making up displays of the1814 campaign.

King’s Man
Click to expand...


Actually, that's not correct. The French continued to wear the older style uniform well into 1813 and beyond. Our current French Line infantry are suitable for the period 1806-1813 I'd say. That being said, yes, we'll be making a lot more French line infantry. In fact, we've already started. I won't get into the details of what specifically, suffice it to say that many will be in Bardin uniform and the release will cover 1812-1815 in all of it's glory. :D

Regards,

Matt
 
Matt, If you want to truely cover the Napoleonic Wars, you might consider doing a figure of an English banker. ;) They contributed more to the downfall of Napoleon's France than any single nation's army.
 
Very true dragoon Unfortunately they are now contributing more to Englands downfall than Napoleons France ever did.
 
FirstLegion said:
It seems that your data might only deal with the major actions and not the minor battles as well. For more data, may I suggest the following resources:

Free, Excellent Resource. Napoleon Series Battle Listings - pretty comprehensive. Please note, I've postd it here without the top navigation frame.
http://www.napoleon-series.org/military/c_listings.html http://http://www.napoleon-series.org/military/c_listings.html

I'd be curiouse to see your completed spreadsheet after you plug in all of the battles listed at the Napoleon Series website.

Another one, that is even more comprehensive, is Digby Smith's Napoleonic Wars Data Book (Greenhill Publishing). It is exactly that, a MASSIVE set of lists of every battle and such fought during the period. Not really something that you read, but just a reference.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Greenhill-Napoleonic-Wars-Data-Book/dp/1853672769
Click to expand...
Time for an update on this. Since as I noted, the Napoleonic series list frequently omitted the sizes of the forces involved and some limit seems appropriate for these purposes, I did obtain and review the Digby Smith Data Book and add all encounters with more than 10,000 total troops involved. I excluded what Smith calls skirmishes since they generally did not involve many troops or end with any significant result. I also tried to exclude seiges that did not include any storming attempts, battles without French forces and encounters where one side just surrendered without combat. Finally, I excluded the Revolutionary War period, at least for now, since it really has very many different characteristics than the subsequent 1805-1815 periods and is huge from a data perspective. I can say that from a limited review, it would simply make both the French and Napoleonic records look better since the French were very dominant in that period. With those assumptions I found the following thus far based on the results of 204 battles:

Main Continent Napoleonic Battles
French W/L/T Total: 74-46-8
Napoleon W/L/T: 28-9-3
French w/o Napoleon W/L/T: 46-37-5
French vs British: 0-8-1

Peninsula Napoleonic Battles
French W/L/T Total: 38-35-3
Napoleon W/L/T: 1-0-0
French w/o Napoleon W/L/T: 37-35-3
French vs British: 5-29-1

So this would seem to confirm the impression that relatively speaking Napoleon was the man to beat with a 75% win/loss record. That said, on the main continent at least, the French were still pretty impressive with a near 57% win/loss rate and over 61% with the British battles excluded.

That raises another point that started me down this analysis. The French have a truely awful record against the British, with or without Napoleon. In fact, in the Peninsula their record without the British would have been 33-6-2 or better than Napoleon's record overall.

So I reiterate my original point, if you want to fairly represent the Napoleonic period, you simply can't exclude the British and related battles, unless you want a Franco biased outcome.;):D
 
What made the British so much better on the Peninsula? Was the majority of the quality in French Leadership on the Continent with Napoleon?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Community platform by XenForo® © 2010-2024 XenForo Ltd.
Back
Top