Efficacy of British Infantry French Revolutionary & Napoleonic

Reminder that the British are constantly played up to be greater than they actually were not by the British but by the countries that the British fought.


IRL they've always been a paper tiger

>>2791152
The thing is that Britain (and especially England) was always suspicious of standing armies, and even of soldiers as a profession. Even during the Elizabethean period, when over half of all living men had seen some form of military service and England was being run like a martial state, there was this odd sort of paradoxical disdain for soldiering: soldiers were untrustworthy, coarse, dangerous, trouble-makers.

>>2791152
You've been reading sharp have you?

The live fire thing is probably correct though. I read that in an osprey book. It could always be wrong though you never know with osprey.

File: 1485973671867.jpg (101KB, 390x569px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 390x569px

British Infantry during the Long 18th Century was of a very high quality. Unlike many armies at the time they actually trained with live ammunition and numerous writers, generals etc from the entire time period praised their stubbornness and steadfastness, especially when coming under intense fire. In terms of battle effectiveness they were good at what they did. The live training had something to do with this, but other writers have postulated that it was born from a sense of proto-religious-nationalism that essentially gave them a sense of superiority and reluctance to give ground. However considering so many of the soldiers were Irish Catholics I personally doubt this.

However they had their issues too. A big one, especially in the Napoleonic Wars, was discipline when on the march and their actual speed. The main thing in Napoleonic/Revolutionary Warfare was speed and maneuver on a larger strategic scale, getting an army to a specific point before the enemy and forcing a battle on your terms etc. The British Army was horrendously slow in comparison. In fact the Infantry kind of stood out in the British Army as a whole; so many of it's generals and officers throughout the period were substandard (with moments of exceptionalism like Marlborough and Wellington), it's cavalry had some of the best horses in the world and excellent equipment but had no discipline whatsoever etc. Excellent logistical support though.

t. mainly Military Experience in the Age of Reason by Christopher Duffy, but also a few other books that I remember reading but can't think of the names right now.

>>2792227
Nah, wargaming rulebooks and supplements mostly. Most people that write them are well read as far as military history goes but it is an industry dominated by the Brits.

>>2792249
Thankyou very much.

>>2791152
Actually the reason as to why the sack of Bajadoz occurred was because once the walls of a citadel were breached it was customary for the aggressor to offer terms of surrender for the defender. This was seen as both a way to avoid unnecessary bloodshed since any attack on a fortified position, even if breached, would prove costly and to allow the defender to surrender honorably. In the case of Bajadoz the city had been besieged for weeks and the garrison had refused to surrender. The Brits took a lot of casualties in the assault and so were understandably pissed off. By the rules of war it was actually completely fair game for the soldiers in their subsequent sacking of the the town. It was because Wellington was taking express pains not to harm relations with the Spaniards that the event was so reviled afterwards. Wellington was actually the one who was behaving out out of the norms of the day at the time.

File: 11695826_10153499380435854_2174762811465908470_n.jpg (78KB, 720x526px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 720x526px

>>2791152
British army is always traditionally small as its an island which spends more on its navy. Therefore they can afford more on training as its only a small number of men compared to Frances mass mobilization, also the British were filthy rich during and post 1805-1815 so more fundz for gunz.
The Brits are quick learners. When they first landed on the continent during the Napoleonic wars I believe it was in Italy they got their asses kicked but then learned from their mistakes at Maida so when they fought again on the continent in Spain they were very competent.
Throughout British history their is always an uncertainty as to how they will perform against their continental counterparts when deployed against them. During WW1 everyone took the piss out of them till the battle of Mons where they gained confidence despite loosing.
Plus what >>2791211 said, the British are strategic masters who always win in the long run but more often than no their enemies try to attribute their victories to martial prowess rather than a comprehension of grand strategy. Its better to say you lost to a good fighter than a good planner.

>>2792249
This is the kind of stuff we need on /his/

>>2792295
I agree

>>2791152
https://www.youtube.com/user/USMarineRifleman0311

This heroic Amerishart singlehandedly destroys the myth that British redcoats were significantly better trained than their continental counterparts in a neutral, unbiased manner.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vUPwl6eZ6Pk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3opE33ef4Go

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Zo2OUatg1s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_Z8lX8yjHM

>>2793323
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q0LAYYLkf0U

File: Battle_of_Albuhera,_by_William_Barnes_Wollen.jpg (181KB, 800x682px) Image search: [Google]

181KB, 800x682px

>>2791152

By 1805, a British soldier could expect a minimum of six months training, compared to the 2 or 3 weeks given to French conscripts. British line infantry would also receive 30 rounds in training compared to the Austrian's 10 and the Russian's 6, so by comparison they were pretty well trained.(http://www.napolun.com/mirror/napoleonistyka.atspace.com/foreigners_British_army.htm)

The problem with the British Army in this period was lack of direction and public mistrust of a standing army, which was largely down to the tendency of politicians to put more faith in the 'blue-water school' of strategic thinking (relying on the Navy instead of all out war on the continent). So instead of committing British troops to a theatre where they could make a real difference, they would often be sent to seize tiny sugar islands in the Caribbean and make pointless raids along the coast of Europe.

Discipline was rather severe in the sense that punishments were harsh and were handed out for pretty much anything. This was often necessary though because the British Army, although technically made up of volunteers, would often increase their ranks in wartime by impressment. The result is that you need savage punishments to keep men in line who don't want to be there anyway. Because if not, you end up with things like Badajoz.

The British just have always had some form of decent officer training making effectively trash line pretty good compared to the contemporaries

>>2791152
The French considered the British to be really tough soldiers especially with their backs against the wall, but prone to making the most random and silly mistakes.

>>2791152
The focus on the Navy ensured you could not land an enemy army on the shores of Britian, thus saving more lives
While people may say it was pointless to focus on colonies and then their European counterparts, it was exactly this that won them the seven years war