I would like to ask you guys, what about Napoleon you like so much? (2 Viewers)

[Spitfrnd]

I like him because he's the most awesome little person to ever live.

As I understand it, the majority view is that he wasn't really that little; more like the average height of the time. The "short thing" is seemingly one of those myths.

 

[redsoldiercollector]

I like the time period more than the man. Politically, Napoleon had some good ideas, but I am very much more in line with Wellington as a politician than say a Napoleon as a politician. The large battles, colorful uniforms, and really the drama he created by involving an entire continent and sometimes 3 continents in what could have been called a world war is just amazing to read about. For me personally, the Napoleonic soldier, regardless of nation or side he fought is the epitomy of a Toy Soldier in my view. The color, display, and just plain coolness of a Napoleonic collection is why I am so facinated with the man and the period. But really, without the man, no time period. Just imagin if he had been assigned to the French Navy as his original wih had been! Te revolutionary Government may have fell to the Bourbons in 1795 and we would all be discussing Caesar, Alexander, or some other famour European right now.

 

[debrito]

I have another one.

How efficient was the musquette? considered the time took to recharge and the accuracy after 25 meters?

if we put a confrontation between first century Roman army and Napoleonic army and open field with same amount of infantry and cavalry, who will be the winner?

 

[trooper]

I have another one.

How efficient was the musquette? considered the time took to recharge and the accuracy after 25 meters?

if we put a confrontation between first century Roman army and Napoleonic army and open field with same amount of infantry and cavalry, who will be the winner?

In the British army the musket was capable of being fired three times a minute. The effective range when fired en masse was 75-100 yards against an enemy en masse.
With regard the latter part of your question this is a case of evolution, the Napoleonic armies, which look so archaic now, were the most modern and efficient force of their time and the poor old Romans wouldn't stand much of a chance against musketry, grape and canister.

 

[debrito]

In the British army the musket was capable of being fired three times a minute. The effective range when fired en masse was 75-100 yards against an enemy en masse.
With regard the latter part of your question this is a case of evolution, the Napoleonic armies, which look so archaic now, were the most modern and efficient force of their time and the poor old Romans wouldn't stand much of a chance against musketry, grape and canister.

What about the arrows, napoleonics has no shield no armour, so a rain of arrows will hide the sun very badly..... + the catapults,

 

[Spitfrnd]

What about the arrows, napoleonics has no shield no armour, so a rain of arrows will hide the sun very badly..... + the catapults,

Ah one of the great war gamers' time warp confrontations. I am afraid it is a simple matter of firepower Rod. For a similarly sized unit, say a Corps versus a Legion, there are just too many cannons and muskets and too few arrows and catapults. While the Roman aerial attacks were impressive to the Gauls, they wouldn't last very long in this contest. The main Roman strength was to close with their enemies and they simply would never get the chance. Now if you limit the French to a bayonet charge, another matter entirely.

 

[debrito]

Ah one of the great war gamers' time warp confrontations. I am afraid it is a simple matter of firepower Rod. For a similarly sized unit, say a Corps versus a Legion, there are just too many cannons and muskets and too few arrows and catapults. While the Roman aerial attacks were impressive to the Gauls, they wouldn't last very long in this contest. The main Roman strength was to close with their enemies and they simply would never get the chance. Now if you limit the French to a bayonet charge, another matter entirely.

Very interesting Bill, thanks for the precisions... As I told you, I have no knowledge of this period military warfare; I am more into Ancient, Crusaders and WWII type of warfare. Times between 1300 and 1900 never got my interest, so I have much to learn.

The reason I keeping ask this, is because I watched again the movie Patriot with Mel Gibbson, and when we see a line of soldiers prepare to shoot and the opposite side of men waiting to be shooting.... I have very difficult to understand that...
In French we will say: Tirez en premier Messieurs...

 

[Spitfrnd]

...
The reason I keeping ask this, is because I watched again the movie Patriot with Mel Gibbson, and when we see a line of soldiers prepare to shoot and the opposite side of men waiting to be shooting.... I have very difficult to understand that...
In French we will say: Tirez en premier Messieurs...

Actually that style of combat with large lines or columns for me marching in calm order forward into a Maelstrom of case, canister and round shoot fine from many cannons and then into the range of three or more musket salvos before being allowed to either stop and fire or charge with bayonets is an amazing part of the Napoleonic period as well. I am not sure if they were incredibly brave, stupid, disciplined or just plain drunk; probably some combination is most accurate. Vive L'Emperor.

 

[Scott]

Found photo by accident,from the recent Waterloo reenactment. Prove a point? No..just "neat."

 

[Spitfrnd]

It is neat but they look like Marie Theresas The lads(?) need discipline.

 

[Scott]

I'm thinking that as reenactors, they didn't get all the uniform parts "uniform." On the other hand at Waterloo, some French units barely had complete issue uniforms so the reality of the reenactors might match the reality of equipping troops during the "100 Days." (From VERY brief reading on the subject, I will stand corrected on this )

My experience in reenacting is that some "officers" and "ncos" don't pressure guys to look sharp. The efforts to get a lot of people to show up also makes them ignore the lack of a uniform part that hadn't come in the mail in time, or that the man can't afford yet. How can you tell a member not to turn out for a yearly event if he doesn't have the chin strap yet?

The photos of the Waterloo reenactment shows that it's like an actor not wanting to be on with a child actor or someone playing Jesus or Lincoln. Napoleon is going to photographed over the "pantomime" Wellington or Duke of Orange.

 

[Ragnar]

What about the arrows, napoleonics has no shield no armour, so a rain of arrows will hide the sun very badly..... + the catapults,

Thats a good question and i think the Romans could do some damage but have to agree with Bill a Napoleonic army would win the day.
But then again lets take a Imperial Roman army attacking the Rorkes Drift station.
First the Romans would bombard the Drift with catapults then soften up the 24th with a few thousand arrows.
Then move in the heavy infantry to get over those Mealy bags.....

 

[trooper]

I agree with Scott on the subject of re-enacting. The other point is the lack of co-ordination during drill movements. Some years ago I watched a group representing the ACW drilling at a show and afterwards commented on this to one of the group who answered "Oh they didn't bother with drill too much during the Civil War they were more concerned with fighting." Well if you read any reminisence of that period you will see that the men spent nearly all day and every day drilling. When I was in the service our basic training lasted eight weeks during which time we learnt drill but in addition spent a lot of time on PT, lectures, first aid, nuclear decontamination, gas drill, medical inspections, weapons training, fatigues, fire piquet, guard duty etc. At the end of eight weeks we moved and drilled like a machine. OK we didn't have the clockwork precision of the Queen's Colour Squadron, but we could give the Guards a run for their money. The point I'm making is that the armies of yesteryear would have been far better drilled than they are depicted. Drill was essential to estimate movement, to keep regular intervals to allow movement into line or column or form square and to maintain a regular rate of fire. The trouble with re-enacting is that the "officers" and "NCOs" don't know how to drill the men. They need a few ex squaddies to show them how.

 

[Scott]

"Oh they didn't bother with drill too much during the Civil War they were more concerned with fighting."

Yep! That one and "We're a fighting unit" when I've asked why they are on parade or guard duty in a fort why their brass and leather is dirty. See the shiny bits in the old photos.

 

[Spitfrnd]

I agree with Scott on the subject of re-enacting. The other point is the lack of co-ordination during drill movements. Some years ago I watched a group representing the ACW drilling at a show and afterwards commented on this to one of the group who answered "Oh they didn't bother with drill too much during the Civil War they were more concerned with fighting." Well if you read any reminisence of that period you will see that the men spent nearly all day and every day drilling. ...
The point I'm making is that the armies of yesteryear would have been far better drilled than they are depicted. Drill was essential to estimate movement, to keep regular intervals to allow movement into line or column or form square and to maintain a regular rate of fire. The trouble with re-enacting is that the "officers" and "NCOs" don't know how to drill the men. They need a few ex squaddies to show them how.

Certainly that is true of Napoleonic armies. The French and British in particularly relied heavily on movement during battle to place the right combinations of units in the right place for opitmal tactical efficiency. That could not have been achieved without considerable drilling practice and the relative poor performance of the post 1812 French in a number of key battles demonstrates that quite well.

 

[Scott]

The massive losses of veterans, officers, and NCOs in Russia, and everywhere else of 1812, plus conscription of the "Marie Louise Boys" and probably some old codgers, convicts and such as well took the fine edge off.

 

[Spitfrnd]

The massive losses of veterans, officers, and NCOs in Russia, and everywhere else of 1812, plus conscription of the "Marie Louise Boys" and probably some old codgers, convicts and such as well took the fine edge off.

Yes very much, although it was mostly the veteran soldiers and NCOs and to a lesser extent, junior officers. Relatively, these suffered the highest percentage losses in Russia.

 

[Grognard]

Thats a good question and i think the Romans could do some damage but have to agree with Bill a Napoleonic army would win the day.
But then again lets take a Imperial Roman army attacking the Rorkes Drift station.
First the Romans would bombard the Drift with catapults then soften up the 24th with a few thousand arrows.
Then move in the heavy infantry to get over those Mealy bags.....

I think you also forgot about the heavy use of artillery (e.g. Grande Batterie) during Napoleonic wars. This was actually one of the strengths of Napoléon. I don't think Roman catapults/arrows could match the range of the Gribeauval cannons

 

[Spitfrnd]

I think you also forgot about the heavy use of artillery (e.g. Grande Batterie) during Napoleonic wars. This was actually one of the strengths of Napoléon. I don't think Roman catapults/arrows could match the range of the Gribeauval cannons

Not forgotten at all mate; just a page back. I hope you know I would not forget Napoleon's "daughters".

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

I have another one.

How efficient was the musquette? considered the time took to recharge and the accuracy after 25 meters?

if we put a confrontation between first century Roman army and Napoleonic army and open field with same amount of infantry and cavalry, who will be the winner?

This inquiry reminds me a little of the question: who would win in a fight...Superman or Mighty Mouse?

I know that muskets are an imperfect weapon, but enough shooting in volley have a tendency to leave large trails of dead men...I won't even get into the devastating effects of Napoleonic artillery.