Hey, can you talk a bit about how different nations organized their battalions (and infantry in general)? Like for example, french used 6 companies, russians used 4, british used 10...

Intuitively, if you shoot first you get them before they get you. You won't get all of them, not even close, but there's less to shoot back at you. Perhaps that's why armies tended to shoot at too far a range? Unless they're very disciplined, i.e. more scared of their own officers than the enemy.

I agree with your observation that the British tended to deploy even more skirmishers than the French was key to the British success in the Peninsular battles. Talavera being a great example of this. The heavy deployment of British lights at times confused the French into an early deployment into line from column. They often commented on having "defeated the first British line, only to me overthrown by an unexpected second line". That second line, holding its fire until close range followed by a quick disciplined bayonet charge repeatedly broke the French advance.

You do us all a disservice by forgetting that it was Jack, in the main, who defeated boney.

Again and again and again

Good stuff sir!

Another military history buff here to say what an informative and well-crafted presentation this is. Morale rules for war games: rewarding if done right - and so very challenging to get right!

Do you wargame.and have you every attempted to apply these principles into black powder wargaming rules?

Vive l'empereur!

Mate your content is some of the best on RU-vid, and you've revolutionised my understanding of Napoleonic warfare, I can't wait to see what you do next! As a small favour, would you mind including a list of your major sources in the descriptions of your videos in future? You've made me fascinated to read more, and having them collated in one list would be a massive help. Thanks a lot and keep up the sterling work!

Thank for helping dispel the long myth that the French soldiers in the Napoleonic Wars only knew how to maneuver on the battlefield only in a column blob.

That last example was absolutely badass, hope you or someone can find the reference. All in all very well put together and fascinating video.

This video speaks to me, not as a soldier God forbid I muster the courage to engage in that line of work, but as a make believe general in Medieval 2 Total War. I draw this account from my experience playing one of its mods: Stainless Steel. The version of the mod I played was a few months before they released the Historical Improvement project or SSHIP. I was playing the Byzantines at the time and I was at war with the Seljuks. In SS, there was a feature I enabled which only allowed the heir and the king/emperor to be the only 'legal' ones to enact war. Not that you couldn't assign others to war regardless but I believe it caused debuffs to character stats (you do no want a ruler percieved weak for anti-rebellion purposes) so you were incentivized/forced to used two most of the time. Now, I was in a protracted war with the Seljuks and I had one several okayish battles that broke their back before the Venetians stirred up trouble to the west forcing me to split my armies and pull the heir back and stop advancing. Of course, I wanted to rush and eat as much as I could in the lull and, thanks to an avtive spy network, I spotted Trabezous as being low occupied and read to be sieged. Alas, there was no way my heir and his forces (depleted as they were) could march from the Aegean coast all the way to the Caucasus and expect the city/fortress to remain that weakly defended. So I did the most reasonable thing a seasoned total war player did. I picked one of the governors (he was a terrible general by stats but in most mods and in vanilla that did not really matter in a quick battle), gathered seven or eight units of milita Kontratoui and Toxatae (in mods like Tsardoms/SSHIP militia get reduced morale on top of their terrible stats when outside settlements) and sent them to take Trapzeous. It was about to turn over to winter when they stopped short of the city. Next turn to Autumn and a Seljuk commander (had better stats than the Byz general) with an outnumbered but experienced force (you can tell from their chevrons and that they were low-tier/alright field infantry. A better sight than reduced morale militia). In my arrogance, I saw an easy fight as it was 2 to 1 odds and initiated the fight. Of course I was not witless. We had spawned in ground that was in my favour as the ground formed a u between my hill on my side and a flattened rise on the Seljuks. I set my archers on top of the hill, my general at the flank of the Kontratoi spear wall and pressed start. The Seljuks left their rise and descended to charge my Byzantines. Outnumbered but well-generaled forces were facing a more proactive human intelligence (through a terribly statted general mind you) with numerical superiority and excellent ground advantage. You can tell I was in glee and let them tire themselves out just trying to reach me. Of course the U wasnt so deep and more like, to use a terribly example but very visually accurate to my memory, A/B- cup sized breasts especially of the young anime girl type for those of you who are familiar but still I consider that advantageous terrain even if it isnt Thermopylae Bounding forward at the van were their archers which baited me to send my general to run them down and knock them out. The charge connected but they did not break and flee but stood and fought then died but they tied him up long enough for their general to charge the Byz commander who I ordered to fall back and reposition. Both bodyguards chased each other and engaged on the far left, ending in my favor thanks to archer support that I spared. However, the enemy archers had not broken and peppered the Kontratoi. It wasn't really devastating but they were putting enough fire for a unit to take some casualties amd they were being focused down but consider this. My militia were up against decent troops and it shows in the stats that matched historical equipment so the fight was already starting off slower than I was used to. Then the infantry pushed forwards and charged the Contratoi. They clasged and a drawn out fight ensued. At some point I had overlooked that an actually dangerous melee unit, albeit very understrengthed like less than 50 I think, had moved into the meleeamd was tearing their way through the center. I watched the progress expand. When my general finally defeated the Seljuk bodyguard, I threw him at the enemy archers who had survived the Toxatae barrage (at that point I repositioned them to the flanks to get at the infantry clash from the Seljuk rear) but his already weakened bodyguard was attritioned for every charge he made and the army was now tiring. My advantage in numbers was gone and it was an even numbers fight now. None of the enemy had broken yet, even their lowest tier unit in the force numbering in their 50s (a routable number by the moral system) was still going strong. The Kontratoi were disconcerted. The depleted 7 man Seljuk bodyguard and general was still alive and now harassing and slowly routing the isolated Toxatae. When the Seljuk archers ran out of arrows, they charged the nearest Toxatae who stood for a while before breaking in large numbers. The local advantage was easily 3 to 1 but it seemed like that just was not the case. The army morale slipped and then cracked and slowly crumbled as my men started fleeing in droves. Everyone on both sides was tired. The Seljuks, the Byzantines. We were dead tired and we had attritioned ourselves to a close 70 percent of our forces and still rising. My general had wasted away his charged and was now 10 strong and I retasked him with going back to the rear of the army and had him rallying the fleeing units. Despite his awful stats, he did serve as a rallying beacon and depleted units rallied and I sent them back into the fight. Again and again a unit broke and my general was there to ray and send them back in. Only one Seljuk unit broke and it was a 10 man archer group from a full strength number of 150+. The Seljuks, because of their superior morale and an inspirational AI controlled general (still alive, the most crucial thing in this fight) were going to slog this out to the very scraps of the barrel. In a fight were tactics were now useless and where grit and determination (calculated by numerous environmental factors the game was assessing whether it was every friendly soldier being felled, the position of the unit in the BoB depleted brawl, or the command stats of the generals and the quality of the units) was the name of the game, I am ashamed to say that the crucial point came and the rags of a full strength force finally broke and fled. It was the right battle that broke first, then the unit to the left then the whole line. They all ran. My general too. Got caught up in the collapse of morale and fled with the archers. The Seljuks held the field at the cost of 80 percent of their army. Less than 200 or so men out of probably 1.5k. More of mine survived but I brought more garbage so 😅 I dont think that means anything good. The attack on Trapezous was disastrously repelled. I think this experience of mine really should sell to you how much morale factors into every war and every battle. Logistics may be the lifeblood of a war waged in full and effectively, but in the set piece battles and small fights of a campaign even a starving man with a rusting sword is just as dangerous as the most intimidating member of a vaunted elite regiment if the situation is set just enough to favor the mind and confidence of a starving braggart of a desperate fight or a tired, lone elite guardsmen then you damn well expect that they will go both beyond what you expect whether it is repelling a wave of fresh enemies as scraps of a force or in fleeing in terror from a surprise flank by ragged remnants. Could I have won that battle? Damn straight I could have sent them packing but in the end I was left at the mercy of the army's morale. It was not in my favor. No amount if tactics will save a battle when there is terror and defeatism in the soul of the army you lead.

The french had more victories against the English then vice versa.

11:25 What made the prussian line infantry more effective was the fact that Austria opted for more quantity over quality. The Austrians believed in conscripts rather than elite guard/line infantry.

Good video

One other factor - powder. THe Brits developed separate gunpowder as opposed to black powder blasting powder. Thi9 inolved purer materials. Better chemistry knowledge. Finer grains packed more closely chopped finely and ""corned"" (had it's corners knocked off in a tumbling action). Giving a powder that had air inclose contact witn the carbon, solphur and salpeter. Those changes plus the introduction of a small controlled amount of water resulted in a powder that was slower burning, more completely combusted with a slower process overall Giving musketry volleys that were more energetic, more predictable as to recoil Resultting in the English cartridge of 1853 or so

f Fine video, impossible to understand the narrator!!!

The thing is, you're only looking at local tactics and there's a much bigger picture. The British Army was much better able to conserve experienced soldiers than any of the other European armies, which suffered far greater losses and had to rely on fresh conscripts. In the French Army, this had a devastating effect on military capability after 1809. By keeping a relatively small army and using it sparingly (mostly relying on the power of both the Royal Navy and the British economy to win the war), the British Army was able to maintain a small, well-trained and experienced force that could not compete with the French by itself, but with the help of other allies, could hold its ground well in battle. The British Army also never suffered from the same large-scale logistical failures that devastated Napoleon's forces on various occasions.

The visualizations attached to these descriptions are extremely helpful.

26:00 When the Swedes used charge and shock tactics during the turn of the 18th Century, they charged as a line, and it worked several times for them, such as during the battle of fraustadt.

Brilliantly presented and written

So many people in the comments absolutely seething at any glories of Britain's past. The language they're writing in to communicate these falsehoods is ironic enough.

the british didn't win at waterloo, it was an allied army

Thermopyle was a definite Greek defeat though. I'm tired of pointing this out. Also, terrain is also a gargantuan factor which played a massive role in some of your early examples. Logistics also played a massive role in the Winter war, in addition to terrain. The Soviets also had problems with tactics and training.

Very interesting video! Regarding your wondering about other European powers utilizing this tactic of fire and charge, I have one possible example to give - and it's from a nation you did mention! In the late 17th Century and early 18th Century, it was I believe a commonly used form of attack in the Swedish army. One or two volleys would be fired, from about 50 metres and then 30 metres, before charging. This was before bayonets had been adopted in the Swedish army, and so instead one in four or one in three men were armed with a shortened pike, while the rest drew swords. In at least one case (The battle of Fraustadt 1706, it's the one I have a book on so I know more about it) cavalry units marched alongside the infantry and charged alongside them. It was maybe less refined than the British usage! I know of no instance of it being used for defence, and the Swedish forces tended to find either great success or catastrophic defeat. There is a wikipedia article (I know, I know...) named 'Caroleans' if you want to read more about it in English. I'd recommend the book I've read, "Fraustadt 1706 - Ett fält färgat rött" by Oskar Sjöström, but unfortunately it doesn't seem like it was ever translated.

Bravest of the brave, not smartest of the smart.

Actually British at Maida, Barrosa and continuously under Wellington, bettered French (except at Waterloo where they were saved by the Prussians). All other British armies were beaten at tactical level in Netherland 1798 Southern and Eastern Spain 1813-1814 Netherland 1814. British had very sturdy infantry, but not the swiftness of combined maneuvers of French infantry, cavalry, artillery. That's why Wellington carefully lined his army on high ground on a narrow front with stronghold to avoid being over flanked (and it nearly happened to him at Buçaco and Fuentes de Onoro)

How the English beat the French - most of Wellington's army were Irish, Dutch and German.

Good quality research. Actual thought put into a small youtube production, well done.

Some very good points. Makes me reconsider my belief based on the Cornwell novels. That would be devastating to have a valley in your face and from the smoke gleaming bayonets emerge. Terrifying.

The lowland Scots, Scots Heavy Horse, and Scottish Highland regiments. That's wot dun for 'em guv'nor.

I'm fairly sure the British never beat Napoleon, and before Waterloo is mentioned what happened was that Wellington managed to hold him off on ground he had chosen until the Prussians arrived. It'd also be interesting to know what percentage were Irish, forced by poverty and Scottish,due to the Highland clearances.

Very well thought out and argued!

Erm Wellington obviously. Sour apples.

Good informed video

French Officer; “The English Infantry is the finest in the World.Fortunately,there is not much of it!”

This reminds me of Swedish tactics in the Great Northern War. The swedes were known for devastating shock tactics.

Man I just love you videos! I hope you'll make a lot of them and your channel to grow. The quality of your work is amazing! Thanks for the hard work to put these videos together

1@39#

Hey I gotta say your channel is nice! For a couple weeks now I've been nerding out on Napoleon and the wars around that time. I ordered the book Napoleon: A Life (Napoleon the Great) by Andrew Roberts. Is there some other books you can recommend?

Oh this channel surely will be going places. Good content mate, well-balanced mix of info and visuals. Thanks!

The main reason for French success in the Napoleonic era is that the French moved quickly by supplying themselves from the land. They could catch their opponents unaware and inflict a defeat on them in this way. Secondly the French tactics was to press a flank hard until the centre of the enemy line was depleted and then send a huge force up the centre to smash it's way through. The British also moved quickly due to their better logistics and bought supplies from locals thus not alienating them in the process. Advancing in column formation is easier than in line formation. You have better control with a column. However there is a trade off. You have to form into line before your attack and in front of enemy artillery and skirmishers. British skirmishers were superior in that we had that tradition form the American war of independence in the shape of The Rifles with better tactics and training. (P.S. The French were involved in that war as well supplying 80% of all american arms and ammunition.) The British were drilled relentlessly to be able to advance in line formation. So cannon was less effective in cutting down men than it was with the column formation. The British also tended to have better intelligence on French dispositions and movements because of their better relationship with locals. You kind of touched on this but the British were far less wasteful of British soldiers than the French were of French troops. France lost so many men in the Napoleonic wars that the average height of a French man fell by a few inches. The British also tended to fight on a ground of their choosing rather than of the French's. When the French picked the ground such as at Quatre Bra the French had success. Then there was Napoleon's presence. Napoleon was a good commander who tended to make the right decisions at the right time and if he made a mistake he could recover. That can not be said of his Marshals. They were indecisive in the main with only one offering any real ability in the Peninsular War.So really the short answer is that the British could stand up to the French tactics better and were better organised and better lead on the field than any other army in Europe in general.

Duuude, what a content 👌🫣 Eye opening! Listening now 2nd time as it is really dense material but wow I love it 👌👌 Thanks for sharing your insight, just superb 🫡🎖️

Thanks for making this man

Great video, thank you for sharing.

is the use of rifle armed skirmishers (such as the 95th) a factor?

First hand sources answer this question. All you have to do is walk into a sound boozer to see that the working class Brit is harder. Only an anglophobic history could miss this self evident truth ;-)