HISTORICON and COLD WARS are two events that our little group never misses and always enjoys. HISTORICON was well attended with the usual dealer area full of goodies for wargamers.

At each event, and we have done so for the last 4 years, EE&L always presents seminars which have always been well received. This year Marc Raiff and your Editor presented a paper in 3 separate parts on Thursday. The presentation lasted some 1 1/2 hours with an additional 30 minutes of questions. The paper was well received by a small group because, for the third year in the row, our seminar was not announced in the program. Consequently, we may present it again at COLD WARS 96. Anyhow, the paper will be presented in EE&L in 3 consecutive articles starting with the present issue. This year, there was only one other Napoleonic paper presented by Major Gray in addition to 2 rules seminars, one by William Kayser (VALMY TO WATERLOO) and the other by Jim Getz (CHEF DE BATTALION). Each were followed by demonstrations (our friend William Kayser sponsored no less than 4 games). (Our little group was unable to present a game using the "mysterious" EE&L rules as we did at COLD WARS 95, but we hope to do so at COLD WARS 96.)

I attended Colonel Gray's excellent lecture which had certain similarities with the third part of our paper. A question and answer period followed which soon turned into a Napoleonic round table. As usual in these lectures, a number of interesting questions were "kicked around" and many needed to be discussed further. Let me give you an idea of some of the statements made and some of the questions asked which, to a certain extent, reflect the very opinionated state of mind of many Napoleonic wargamers.

1. A participant was of the opinion that British brigadier generals were better than their French counterparts. I have a hard time accepting that statement. Without discrediting the quality of the British brigadiers, which was high, it is hard to believe that the French brigadiers who, for the most part, had been promoted through the ranks during the Wars of the French Revolution and of the Empire (that is from 1793 to 1808-1809) were inferior to the British brigadiers who, prior to the Peninsula, had not been engaged in continental warfare in any sustained large campaign since the unfortunate campaign in Flanders.
2. The same person was of the opinion that the Prussians of 1806 were as good as the French.

   These questions were not answered or even discussed, and, unfortunately, I was unable to contact that wargamer (who is obviously unaware of EE&L) to further discuss the above subjects and tell him about the discussion we had on the 1806 Prussians in issues 1 and 2, when we presented Bressonet's conclusions in his famous Etudes tactique sur la campagne de 1806. To be complete, let us say that nothing was wrong with the individual Prussian soldier of 1806. He fought well and that the Prussian defeat had other causes was also discussed in EE&L 1 and 2.

3. Some participants were surprised about the importance of the Permanent Division system on the conduct of operations and that they only became part of the Austrian army in 1808-1809, the Prussians in 1806, the Russians after 1808 and the British army by Wellington in the Peninsula in 1808.
4. The same was true on the importance of the permanent Staff system introduced by the French during the Wars of the French Revolution (and even before) and further extended during the Empire. Many were surprised to learn that at Austerlitz, the Russian staff was so incompetent and outdated that practically all the staff work was provided was provided by the Austrians who in turn were far from attaining the standards of the French.

   We pointed out that there was somewhat of a drop in the quality of the French staff system at the Corps and Division level in 1813, 1814 and that at Waterloo, Soult provided staff work drastically substandard compared to that of Berthier in the previous campaigns.

Questions and Answers

In addition, during these 3 days, I had the opportunity to speak with many people and answer many questions. The following is a sampling:

French Uniform Colors: Blue by any other name?

One wargamer told me: "We have seen in several wargames hosted by some authoritative people French light regiments painted with blue uniform colors lighter than the Line regiments. Did French regulations require cloth of lighter blues for the light regiments?"

The answer to that one was easy. Official regulations did not call for lighter blue for the light regiments. However, there was a shortage of indigo (the dye originally used for blue) and that was replaced by other dyes, some of which faded quite quickly in the rain and sun to which these uniforms were constantly exposed at a faster rate than the indigo-dyed cloth. Consequently, all shades of blue ranging from deep almost black blues to blue grays and even light blues were encountered. In addition, there were no color standards and practically no quality control, so originally many shades of blue could be found in the new original uniforms of the French army. The same was true with some of the green cloth used by the chasseurs à cheval, the hussars and the Dragoons.

Who are the Better Horsemen?

Another wargamer asked me: "Some sources point out that the French horsemen were not as good in horsemanship as their British, Austrian, Russian, etc. counterparts."

My answer was that it may have been true for some recently raised units in 1813 and 1814, and with some formerly dismounted dragoons recently rehorsed at the beginning of the Campaign of 1807 in Poland. However, I had a hard time accepting that veteran horsemen who had been riding horses for years, most of whom were son of paysans or farmers and hence exposed to horses, did not learn the art of equitation as well as their foreign counterparts.

Whither Austrian and Russian Cavalry Success?

During the Wars of the French Revolution, the Austrian cavalry had a very high rate of success against the French cavalry that should have continued during the wars of the Empire but it was not so. Since Austrian or Russian cavalry regiments were larger than their French counterparts, they should have been victorious in every encounter.

My answer was that prior to the reforms originated by the First Consul and continued in 1804, the French cavalry as a general rule was poorly mounted and greatly understrength especially in comparison to the Austrians who, during the Wars of the French Revolution, consistently fielded larger numbers of cavalry units that were on the average much better mounted and equipped than their French counterparts. That situation drastically changed during the Wars of the Empire:

1. After the reorganization of the French cavalry and the introduction of drastic tactical changes after 1802-1803, single French cavalry regiments were seldom engaged against enemy regiments and because of its new organization, the French cavalry was now concentrated in brigades and Divisions. Hence, the French faced the Austrians with full cavalry brigades and Divisions and often outnumbered them. For instance, during the Campaign of 1809, the French light cavalry brigades, on the average, were composed of 3 light regiments each at 3 squadrons (each slightly more numerous than their Austrian counterparts). The result was that when such a brigade was opposed by an Austrian light cavalry regiment (8 squadrons), it outnumbered the enemy by one squadron, and, in addition, had a larger effective strength.
2. The major cavalry combats during the Wars of the Empire on the eastern front usually involved a greater number of cavalry than during the Wars of the Revolution, and the French were superior to their opponents in handling large number of cavalry regiments such as at the battles of Austerlitz, Eylau, Eckmühl and Friedland 1 That held true until the French cavalry was destroyed in Russia in 1812. (1. George Nafziger in A Guide to Napoleonic Warfare, p. 165, says: "...In the historical sense, the French cavalry was victorious over everyone it encountered on a tactical level above the regiment prior to 1813. There are individual instances of the French being beaten by other cavalry, but in most of the major cavalry engagements, the French organization and control seems to give them their cavalry victory..." )
3. For financial reasons, the Austrians reduced the total amount of their mounted arm after the Wars of the Revolution. Consequently, there was less cavalry to go around in an Austrian army after 1801.

Waterloo French Troop Training: Good or Bad?

Napoleon's troops at Waterloo were poorly trained and not up to the standard of the troops of the previous years.

Our answer here was also easy. It has been unanimously accepted by serious historians (which is very rare for historians from all sides to agree on anything) that Napoleon commanded at Waterloo one of the finest armies he ever fielded. Scott Bowden in Armies at Waterloo,1 p. 19, says: "...the men who served in Napoleon's army in 1815 were entirely volunteers, most of whom were fanatically loyal and experienced veterans bent on revenge..." That statement is based on French official archive material from Vincennes, carton C15/1-6, c16/24, C17/95.

The army that Napoleon found upon his return from Elba consisted on paper of 200,000 soldiers. Of these, 32,800 were listed on leave (so Louis the XVIIIth would not have to pay them), and an additional 82,000 were listed as deserters. Napoleon recalled them immediately and of the 114,000 men missing, only 8,105 did not return. Before Waterloo, which is only 8 weeks after his entry into Paris, Napoleon had raised a field army of 284,000 well trained soldiers. Most had fought at least one campaign. Many were veterans who had been in prison camps in England, Prussia and Russia and others were from the garrisons of Poland and the German States who had returned. The Army of the North was to field some 128,000 of these well-equipped and well-trained veterans. In addition, Napoleon had to garrison the fortresses, using some 220,000 mobile National Guardsmen. Therefore, by June 10, a total of 504,000 men were under the colors.

This article appears in MagWeb (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web.
Other military history articles and gaming articles are available at http://www.magweb.com