Letters on: Empire (rules); More on the Frankfurters; Battle of Arcis-sur-l'Aube OOB request; Prussian 1806 Defeat; Three Letters on TV series, Sharpe ; Help for a New Member; Reenactor forum on Compuserve; and Book Translations plug.
On Empire
Dear Dave,
In response to Barstool's moaning in edition 28.
In "Empire" terms Class 1 Artillery is: Young Guard, French Line & Horse, British / KGL and North Italian Guard.
Class II is: Russian Guard, Prussian Guard and Line of 1815 other than those batteries raised in that year.
Class III is everything else with wheels and a barrel !
DUB cavalry is CRAP spelt wrongly. They include most French Chasseurs in 1813-14, Prussian Landwehr, Austrian Uhlans 1812-15, Insurrection Cavalry, most Danes, anyone native to South of the Pyrenees, Hanoverians, Dutch Belgians and anything remotely Cossack.
Furthermore (or should that be, Rutherford - Moore?) you won't find anything much to help you in "Empire" IV on skirmishers. This being the Spawn of the Devil in a pastey, wee green box and not to be confused with the current, rather splendid, edition in the red, white, blue and gold box which is actually number V. Not that will help much either, just take it that, if they were trained for it they could do it and if they weren't they couldn't and you will be as wise as the next man. Unless that's me of course.
However, I do agree it is annoying when authors assume you know what they are talking about, but there again it doesn't stop Hofschröer does it (Whoops!).
David Commerford
West Drayton, Middlesex
More on the Frankfurters
Dear Mr. Watkins,
Concerning the last issue of First Empire a Mr. Bygrave from Harlow has asking for information on the Frankfurt battalion...
Extract from "Military Uniforms Of The World" by Blandford,
"The capital city of Frankfurt (am Main) was pledged to supply an infantry contingent, dressed in white and red-and a Jäger unit dressed in green, to the Confederation. The white coatees of the infantry had no lapels, and were fastened with a single row of buttons. The bearskin caps had white metal plates. The Fusiliers wore the bicorne. In 1808, the infantry were ordered to wear a dark blue uniform and shakos on the French pattern. The pack was of the type commonest in the Napoleonic period"
Also some other points I would like to note are, the typical style for the Grenadiers followed the French flaming grenade motif on the cartridge pouch and white cross over red circle on top of bearskin cap. Although specified above, the uniform changing from white to blue in 1808 is not the truth because at Talavera, the Frankfurt battalion were still dressed in the old white uniforms but it is possible that the shako would have been adopted or even a mixture of white and blue uniforms as the uniforms were gradually being replaced, as we know this took much longer in Spain. The only definite information I have is the Frankfurt battalion in 1812 during the Russian campaign belonging to XI Corps commanded by Augereau as definitely wearing blue faced red with shakos.
The organisation of the battalion would have followed French regulations with an independent section of sharpshooters - perhaps as above this refers to a large section of Jäger dressed in green somewhat on the same lines as Nassau's early attached Reitende Jäger, therefore Mr Bygrave has the opportunity of dressing 'his soldiers in a mix of early and late uniform examples with a compliment of sharpshooters in green.
As for the colours the unit carried I am at a loss, although at Talavera being in the 'German' Division with the Dutch, Baden, Nassau and Erbprinz regiments, like the Dutch may have had similar colours as the French.
I hope this has been of help.
Ongar, Essex
Arcis Orbat Anyone
Dear Dave:
Thanks for the subscription and back-issues. A wonderful read. Please maintain your present policy of catering to a variety of Napoleonic " tastes" . I'm a wargamer / enthusiast if I was forced to choose a label, but I enjoy all facets of the era, be they hard-core slugfests between historians or tales of drunken excess and moral depravity of the Hussar arm (if such behaviour isn't historical re-enactment of sort, I don't know what is, given what I've read of light cavalry in their off-duty hours...). Surely there is room in the arena for all.
I have a request to ask of your readership. Does anyone have an Allied order of battle for the battle for Arcis-sur-L'Aube in the 1814 campaign, particularly those troops who were up against Leval's brigade of Peninsular veterans?
I, too, would look forward to an article by Peter Hofschröer on the Prussian army appearing in the magazine. I have a lot of respect for his scholarship and expertise although apparently tact isn't one of his strong points and while there is a need for book reviews, I'd like to see him active in a more "constructive" context and I mean nothing backhanded in that.
As an aside, Waterloo is not one of my "pet" interests in the period, not that the campaign itself is not interesting, but rather largely because it often seems so capable of generating vitriol and bile - not to mention Chauvinism in the original sense of the word - on the parts of many concerned. I thought the war was over, and that close to 200 intervening years and lots of political water under the bridge would have lessened the controversy. I'm no Bonapartist, Prussia as an influential nation state ceased to be about three-quarters of a century ago, and whether Wellington misled Blücher or lied out of pure spite, or bad spleen over an inferior vintage of Chablis, isn't, I hope, about to derail plans for European union.
Thanks for a great magazine,
Robert Swan
Miyagi-ken, Japan
The Prussians in the defeat of 1806. A reply to Peter Hofschröer
Dear Dave:
I was disappointed to see that Peter Hofschröer missed the main points of my letter (see First Empire 27), which were:
- 1. The exchange of information in Europe has become much easier,
2. A detailed account of how the Prussians lost in 1806 would be better placed in an article than a review.
As to Peter's challenge, I shall try and answer some of his criticism of the Anglo-Saxon historian's point of view of the Prussians defeat in 1806. It will be very much of my own opinion and I am sure Peter will criticise it heavily in the future but it may be of interest to First Empire readers.
Prussia lost the war in 1806 because she had an army in decay with no standing leadership at the head. This led to all the other problems of the Prussian army. Firstly, the commanders and their ideas:
- 1. Brunswick believed "The best thing is not to be at war at all"
[1]
2. Hohenlohe and Massenbach said "All Prussian methods are old and bad; therefore Von Ruechel and Brunswick are always wrong" [2]
3. Von Ruechel Stated "Nothing that isn't Prussian is worth anything; therefore Hohenlohe and Massenbach are never right." [3]
This gives an idea of what the Prussian Councils of War must have been like and it is surprising that they came to any decision at all.
In 1806 Prussia did not go to war alone. They went with the Saxons and Russians 1805 may have been their best chance, but they sat on the fence and did rather well out of it, being bought off by Napoleon with Hanover. (Probably a much better deal than the Austrians or Russians would have given them). Would their commanders have been able to agree a plan of action and execute it to threaten Napoleon? We shall never know, but I believe the Prussians would have moved so slowly and in such confusion that the French would have overwhelmed them.
In 1806 they came up with the best plan. "Executed with decision and skill by a better army under competent commanders this plan might have succeeded." [4] As for the Army itself, I can do no better than quote from "How Napoleonic Armies were won" [5] "But this wonderful efficiency of the Seven Years War had declined by 1806. Outwardly the army was the same. The discipline of the infantry was there, but the drill had gone wooden , and in more senses than one the army had grown old. The generals are old, and the regimental officers far too old. Prussia had been left so paralysed with debt from the Seven Years War that all sorts of economies were practised, and the men got too little training.
About half of the army was either with the colours for six weeks training only, each year, or, if living in barracks, the men were allowed to practice civilian trades. Officers had little experience in working with their units in manoeuvres, and those manoeuvres had degenerated into big reviews. The cavalry had been split up; all mounted men had too little horse work; the horses were out of condition. The skirmishing and light infantry work in the Seven Years War had been mainly done by irregulars enlisted for the war. When they disappeared they left behind them no tradition of how to do things.
All through, the army suffered from the tact that there was not enough teaching. It was no-one's direct business to teach those beneath him. The artillery was divided up chiefly into Battalion guns, and the whole service was some what despised in comparison with the cavalry and the foot. It's officers were kept out of the higher commands which Napoleon said was "idiotic". In brief, the elasticity and vigour - had gone, the whole machine was stiff, and above all, there was not a man at the head of it. Frederick might have been beaten at Jena, but he would never have divided his force in the face of the enemy, never have permitted the endless talk at the councils of war, which only made clear to everyone the dangers or every course, never to have let Lannes cross the Saale without a blow, and never have let his infantry stand for two hours firing without ordering a charge.
Nor, again, would he have permitted the insubordination and disloyalty with which Massenbach and Hohenlohe treated their commander; nor again had he been there, would the sight of one wounded man riding into Jena have caused a panic, nor would the men have lost heart because the staff had lost it's head. Prussian soldiers trusted Fritz and they did not trust the generals of 1806, and they were right in each case. They were horribly beaten at Jena, but it was not the fault of the men or of Prussian ideals of discipline. It was a breakdown in what should have been the brain of the army that ruined the members." So, the army Prussia fielded in 1806 lacked leadership and trust in its leaders. Any reforms introduced were viewed with suspicion and although brave, the younger officers had not the will nor the freedom of their French counterparts.
In 1807, when well led and motivated, the Prussian soldiers at Eylau under Lestocq drove back Davout's Corps for 2 miles nearly achieving a victory for the allies. This was the same corps that only the year before had smashed the main Prussian army.
This is only half the answer to Peter's letter as I have not yet gone into the tactics of the armies (as I may at some future date), but I await his reply with interest.
Sources
On the Vilification of Sharpe and Moore
Dear Dave,
With reference to the letter from Ian Barstow in FE28, I have decided to write in the defence of those of us who " vilify Sharpe and Rifleman Moore ", since I am only on the fringes of this motley band and I suspect will be able to complete a letter without my word processor dissolving from the weight of vitriol. But before I do, a couple of points. Ian mentions that it is possible to equip oneself for under 500 pounds or less than 20 trips to the pub. Where the hell is this man drinking and can he come and stand next to me at the next event? [Ed. If he did you would find out why it costs so much!]
And as a member of the British Division, can I ask what "campaign clothing" is? [Ed. The term 'Campaign Clothing' always assumed by many re-enactors to be worn tunics, dead rabbits hanging from belts, clay pipes, period spectacles, small buys in the park, packs for goal posts..., is in fact a term used by model makers, wargamers etc., to refer to a figure dressed in greatcoat, cap, overalls, musket and giberne. In other words the minimum required to go on campaign and to look like a Napoleonic Soldier.] Secondly, the reason why we haven't got 5000 members and certain other societies have, is that our method of fighting is not predisposed to large quantities of melee and, to put it bluntly, fisticuffs. And we probably don't drink enough. Other societies do have extremely dedicated historians and re-enactors in the truest sense of the word, but my own experience suggests that this is not the reason why the majority of the members join.
Anyway, back to Sharpe. I feel that Ian is partially missing the point. I would agree that we should be riding any bandwagon that presents itself but it has not been made easy by the way things have been organised. When the filming was done in the winter, units were contacted independently and so it would be very difficult to accredit the NA with this. If the NA itself passed the contact addresses on, then surely it was up to the committee to stipulate that the association was accredited with its part in the process. As it was, it proved impossible for me to take 4 weeks off work at what would effectively have been half pay, and so that put paid to that idea.
However, the committee should think long and hard about associating itself with some of the people that went from my area. I have no desire to give names or specific details, but there were some very suspect circumstances by which people were able to obtain the long stretches of time off needed and who had little interest in re-enacting and none in the NA. This led to a distinct "Sharpe snobbery" which culminated with one of these characters informing me that "only proper re-enactors did Sharpe" and me threatening to rearrange his face.
As for Richard Moore himself, I have no real problems. I have known Richard for 5 years or so and have no objections to the man. No, Sharpe is not the most historically correct thing in the world, but neither are the uniforms of a sizeable percentage of re-enactors and it is damn good entertainment. Richard has found himself a nice little niche to work in and good luck to him. No, the problem I have is with Rifleman Moore and I see the two men as separate entities. But this stems primarily from the treatment of his presence at events. Tours of the campsites by "Rifleman Moore", special displays by him and commentaries of battles concentrating on his action so much that the rest of us on the field wonder if we should have bothered turning up. As for the situation involving two sets of 95th Rifles etc., that surely is up to the relevant parties and the committee to sort out and then report to the membership. I'm afraid to say that Ian has not given me any basis for complaint over re-enactors' attitudes to Sharpe that I cannot turn around and say; "You are a member of the committee, this is your problem, you do something about it."
Praise be to Sharpe
Dear Dave,
With reference to Ian Barstow's letter "Vive La Sharpe!" issue 28 First Empire Magazine.
Who is the one character that everyone knows when the Napoleonic Era is mentioned? No not our beloved Emperor but, yes Major Sharpe! I found this out when I approached the local library with a view to staging an exhibition on the NA "Can you arrange for Sean Bean to make a personal appearance?" was the librarian's reply.
Most people had never heard of the NA but they had heard of Sharpe. So what's wrong with using this great and free publicity, after all we do want the public at our re-enactments - with out them we would be short of events. If the public want to see a bit of "romance" in our events then let them have it and in that way they will come again and we can keep the NA going. Having said that I hope that you don't think that I'm against authenticity because I'm not after all that's why I joined, but I do recognise that you have to tailor things accordingly. If we want to swell our ranks we must bend a little.
My library exhibition was a great success, at least the Skegness area knows we exist now. Thanks to all who helped with exhibits and photographs - some of which were of the Sharpe crew (thanks to Rifleman Moore).
One final observation! Why are all the Sharpe books and videos always out on loan?
Re: Viva La Sharpe!
Dear Dave,
I would like to echo the feelings of Ian Barstow on the attitude of certain members of the Napoleonic Association. I fought at the 1995 reenactment at Waterloo as a member of the KGL Rifle battalion. The event was superb and I came away with some rule changes in mind. The day before the reenactment most of the units met at a gymnasium in Waterloo for drinks and lunch and to put on a display.
Whilst conversing with some British Line reenactors, I was surprised at the vitriol thrown at Rifleman Moore (not to his face I might add), whom I found to be a pleasant and quietly spoken man. Don't these pillocks realise that they are only playing at being soldiers, and that were it not for the likes of Mr.Moore and the TV series Sharpe, which I consider to be good entertainment, that most of the British public would still think Wellington's single German victory at Waterloo was the Napoleonic wars full stop?
By the way Ian, I wasn't refering to your article, (On Davout), as I hadn't read it. I only wanted to throw a spanner in the works as I, like yourself, enjoy a bit of discussion. I consider competence to be a better attribute than luck, maybe that's why I keep losing wargames just lately!
To some up, Ian Barstow is correct in all his observations and comments and I agree wholeheartedly. I can hardly wait for the new series to start!
Help for a new Member...
Dear sir,
I am in the process of applying for membership of the NA after discovering it's existence completely by accident following a chance encounter with your excellent magazine at a recent show.
My interest lies in the wargaming side of life - or, to quote my daughters, "Mum, Dad's playing with his toy soldiers again."
I am relatively new to the Napoleonic period and am in need of some guidance which you or your readers may be able to supply.
I am currently researching the French Infantry Regiments (1803 onwards) and in several references keep running into passing statements concerning Line Grenadier Battalions. I would be very grateful if anyone can offer any information concerning these formations. Were they, as I suspect, made up from Grenadier companies detached from their parent Line Battalions? If so, did they change / retain uniform / insignia. Did they have a specific designation, a number or other identifying title? Did they have a fixed organisation and if so what was it? Were they formed for specific tasks / battles / campaigns to be later disbanded and RTU'd? Better still, does any decent published (English language) reference exist? The answers to all these questions and more will (hopefully) appear shortly in First Empire.
Also, (In for a penny, in for a pound, eh what?) I am trying to get the "flavour" of individual battalions / regiments. Where were they raised / recruited / conscripted / trained, or did the regional aspect they ever existed) disappear with the amalgam of 1793/94. Did they have nicknames? Any particular characters, characteristics, legends or reputations? Who were the deadbeats and who were "the bravest of the brave"? I suppose it could be described as regimental folklore. Tall order? My gratitude to anyone who can point me in the right direction.
Oh, one more thing, (Strewth, he's really pushing it now) the noise of war! Bugle calls, drum beats, cannon & musket fire, stirring music of the period, etc., - you know the sort of thing. Does such a recording exist? Maybe from a film soundtrack? You re-enactment chappies are not the only ones whose hearts beat faster (and bowels stir ominously) at the Pas de Charge you know!
Living History - Reenactors Forum on Compuserve
Dear Dave:
I have recently discovered this forum on compuserve which caters for reenactors and living history buffs of all periods. It might be just worth a brief line in FE to make your readers more aware of it as I've noticed a few members are on-line but may not be aware of the forum itself. If you are not already aware of the forum you might like to take a look in GO LIVING.
A Shameless Plug or Two
Dear Dave,
I agree with Russell Tomlinson in your latest issue, when he said that there should be more about the Napoleonic Wars published in translation from French, German, Spanish and other languages.
Greenhill Books would welcome recommendations and, especially, word from any of your readers who may have translated a book, or know of someone who has.
Translations that are included in our Napoleonic Library are:
THE CAMPAIGN OF 1812 IN RUSSIA (General Carl von Clausewitz), IN THE PENINSULAR WITH A
FRENCH HUSSAR (Albert-Jean Michel de Rocca), LIFE IN NAPOLEON'S ARMY: The Memoirs of Captain Elzear Blaze.
In addition, the remarkable trilogy by Paul Britten Austin is based on translation of material, often for the first time, from a very wide range of languages. Already published have been 1812: THE MARCH ON MOSCOW and 1812: NAPOLEON IN MOSCOW and the final, monumental book 1812: THE GREAT RETREAT will be published in October.
With all good wishes.
This article appears in MagWeb (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web.
By waiting for the Russians, they probably would have lost Saxony as an ally and far too much territory, which would have been difficult to recapture from Napoleon.
[1] "How Napoleonic Wars were Won" Page 105 Townsend Warner 1915
[2] Ibid. Page 106
[3] Ibid. Page 106
[4] Atlas of the Napoleonic Wars. Text to map 58. Espesito and Elting
[5] "How Napoleonic Wars were Won" Page 151
Broseley, Shropshire
John Tower,
Gillingham, Kent
Valerie Mills,
21eme de Ligne,
Humberside File, NA.
Skegness, Lincolnshire.
Vive L'Emperor
Wassenberg, Germany
102650,650@compuserve.com
Jim Gaskill
Bournemouth, Dorset
Ian Edwards
100441,2570@compuserve.com
Lionel Leventhal
Greenhill Books
1 Russell Gardens
London. NW11 9NN
Back to Table of Contents -- First Empire #29
© Copyright 1996 by First Empire.
Other military history articles and gaming articles are available at http://www.magweb.com