Napoleonic Line Infantry

>>2504132
>there was a fucking lot of them.
>Commanders were actually based off of talent instead of Nobility unlike most of the nations France was walking over.

Often relied on reaching the enemy quickly while they were unprepared, often troops would have to travel huge distances each day (40km upwards)
Heaps of other strategies as well that were new for the time, also the fact that the people were fighting for something they believed in rather than those fighting for monarchs

>>2504141
Napoleon's military success was not due to have the number advantage

File: 1814 French 1st Light Infantry.jpg (136KB, 469x800px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 469x800px

>>2504141
were these the only factors?
when it came down to the fighting, the battalions hitting each other across the fields or villages, why is it that the french infantry would usually fight harder?
was it something to do with musketry, firing speed, accuracy?

File: Polish Ulhans.jpg (88KB, 764x1024px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 764x1024px

>>2504147
this is certain, Napoleon moved his armies very well but it can't be the only factor to his victory.
it happened that sometimes others would brilliantly move their armies in great positions only to themselves be destroyed but what made the french soldier so different?

>>2504151
only stated the two I know of. I usually try not to talk out of my ass on /his/.

>>2504147
the numbers certainly were not his disadvantage either senpai.

>>2504151
By all accounts, french infantry were inferior in terms of shooting. They did not have the discipline, the training, or the quality of supplies that the coalition armies had.

One thing they did have going for them was that french forces could fight at bayonet range. Their exceptional morale meant that if charged, they did not run, they stayed and stabbed. Coalition soldiers did not often do well at bayonet range, because their discipline extended to loading and firing their weapons, following orders, and not running when the guy next to them dropped. They did all that well. But it's not worth much in a melee.

And of course the french even before the revolution had exceptional artillery, which was used to maximum effect in the later wars.

File: pru.png (698KB, 1289x765px) Image search: [Google]

698KB, 1289x765px

>>2504163
>the numbers certainly were not his disadvantage either senpai.

Depends of the battle
Most major battles were evenly balanced, but some like Austerlitz or Jena–Auerstedt clearly had him disadvantaged

>>2504163
Mass conscription slightly balanced out the big coalitions he was facing but the reason to his success was purely strategic finess

>>2504162
Ideologically they were more motivated, but I still think Napoleon's success comes mainly from his logistical and strategic brilliance
He could think intelligently and creatively, once even pretending to be on the back foot by asking for negotiations so he could trap his enemies as they rushed carelessly thinking they had the advantage

>>2504179
putting it into perspective makes me look like a pussy

>>2504208
Er, well, it certainly wasn't my intention.

>>2504163
aight, thx
>>2504179
I read that the french were easily some of the best shooters in the average soldier camp and that it was the russians who not only used the bayonet charge the most but used it at its most effective and charged like sex-depraved mongoloids.

It could have to do with the moral but it certainly had to do with their great artillery arsenal and skills.

>>2504219
It depends on time, really. As the campaigns went on, french troops acquired experience and training and could fight about as well as anyone, if not better, as line infantry. Early republican infantry was short good shooters, and they were more often deployed as skirmishers and light infantry than they were line infantry, since it didn't make sense to mix em.
The early russian army was on par with the other coalition armies in terms of organization and what sort of troops it used. Like the rest, it was a professional army organized on conventional lines, with only crack troops like some of the ones in italy being big on bayonets. As the wars went on the russians were certainly fonder of bayonets, for much the same reason as the early french army. However, they wouldn't charge with the same morale until 1812, when the war became for them quasi-religious. Then those fuckers could charge. There's a reason borodino is remembered fondly by the russians, despite being a defeat.

>>2504141
>talent instead of Nobility
don't discredit the other generals, most were competent. it was just that napoleon was superior. Austria in Italy had a fairly sound plan and their ideas weren't awful by any means. Also Nelson was pretty good.

Also numbers was pretty much only in the French favor during the first war, ie. before Napoleon was emperor.