He made for some great history! |
Given that today is the 209th anniversary of the start of
the Napoleonic Wars, I thought it fitting to take a look at the very human
factors that made all the difference in the outcome of that conflict. Technologically, the combatants were evenly
matched. The crucial differences were
those of ideology and intellect.
Ideology and intellect, of course, do not fight or win battles, but they
do manifest themselves in the type of army that is fielded and the way the army
fights. This human factor is of interest
not only to historians, but to those crafting and reading stories that take
place during that time, and it is the human factor that this post will explore.
George III |
The years spanning the overlap of the Regency Period and the Napoleonic
Era are extremely popular with readers of both romance and historical fiction. The Regency Period began in 1811 when King
George III was, due to severe mental illness, deemed unfit to rule. For the next nine years, the United Kingdom
was ruled by the King’s son, the Prince of Wales acting in the capacity of
Prince Regent. With George III’s death
on January 29, 1820, the Prince Regent became King George IV, formally ending
the era. The Napoleonic era began on November 9, 1799
when Napoleon Bonaparte seized control of the French revolutionary government. France would find itself at war with Britain
until July 1815, when a coalition led by Britain finally defeated Napoleon’s
forces. The period’s popularity isn’t surprising. Combining the start of the Industrial
Revolution with class based social upheaval and dashing soldiers blooded in the
Napoleonic wars, there is no shortage of plot engines and compelling
characters. The British infantry fought
– and won (the British infantry was the only force never to be decisively
defeated by the French) many battles against huge numerical odds. When crafting characters and scenes from this
period, it is important and useful to understand both the people and the
tactics that yielded the successes and made the heroes upon which books and
screenplays dramatizing this period rely.
The Prince Regent |
Who
were the Poor Bloody Infantry?
In
the late 18th century, Britain was divided into three recruiting areas: South Britain (England and Wales), Ireland
and North Britain (Scotland). Each of
these was subdivided internally into individual districts. A parallel recruiting organization existed
for the law enforcement and home defense “army,” which was composed of the
Militia, the Veteran Battalions, the Yeomanry and the Fencibles. (These
formations were separate from the regular army, and were not subject to
deployment overseas.)
The regular
British Army was an all-volunteer force, drawing most of its recruits from the lower
social classes. Army life was known to be harsh, the discipline severe and the pay
abysmally low. As a result, it was most
attractive to those for whom civilian life offered options that were
significantly less appealing. Field
Marshal Arthur Wellesley, also known as the Duke of Wellington indicated that
British soldiers often came to the army from questionable circumstances. “Many,” he said “enlist from having got
bastard children – some for minor offences – some for drink.” The Duke’s opinion was, tempered by the
transformation worked upon the soldier by the army “They were the scum of the
earth; it is really wonderful that we should have made them to the fine fellows
they are.”
British Infantry, circa 1809 |
In
Scotland however, a number of men enlisted due to the economic collapse of the
weaving trade (displaced due to the ongoing industrial revolution) and came
from skilled artisan and/or middle class households. Up until 1806, soldiers enlisted for life in
exchange for a bonus of £23 17s 6d.
Unfortunately for the soldiers, most of the bonus was held back by the
army to cover the cost of basic kit and “necessities.” During the height of the wars, and in recognition
of the need to field a larger army against the huge French land forces, a “limited
service” system was established in 1806.
Under the new system the terms of service were lowered to seven years
for the infantry and ten for the cavalry.
Additionally, corporal punishment (which had included flogging so severe
that it normally left a man scarred for life) was limited only to serious derelictions
of duty, and improved an improved infantry training regimen was adopted.
British Officers, 1815 |
Contrary
to popular belief, officer positions were not limited to the wealthy and the
nobility. They were required to be
literate, but beyond that, the British Army’s officer corps carried widely in
terms of social and educational backgrounds.
(The term “officer and a gentleman” referred to the officers character
and conduct rather than his social class.)
Indeed, the Napoleonic Wars saw the army make great strides toward a merit
based officer corps. Five percent of the
officers were commissioned from the ranks and less than twenty percent had
purchased their initial commissions.
Relatively few officers were from the English nobility. In 1809, only 140 officers on the active
service list were peers. Promotions for
officers generally came through seniority, with less than twenty percent being gained
by purchase. Merit promotions were
somewhat rare, but increasingly common as the war progressed.
Tactics and Procedures
Four elements combined to make the British infantry the finest in the
world, and to return them victory after victory. These were a long-service volunteer force,
the line formation, musket drill with live ammunition and the bayonet.
Unlike European armies, the British army was an all-volunteer force. Prior to 1806, enlistments were for life. The confluence of these two facts was an
organization with exceptionally high morale, unit cohesion and standards of
discipline and training. Add into the
mix a professional non-commissioned officer (NCO) corps (corporals and sergeants),
and the result was an army so familiar with battlefield drill and maneuver that
conducting complex formation movement, such as deploying from a march column into
a firing line was almost autonomous. European
conscript armies, such as the French, whose soldiers had vastly less military
experience, and who lacked a mature, highly capable and well-seasoned NCO corps
were unable to execute complex tactics efficiently or to effectively use
tactics that depended on a highly disciplined soldiery.
Column meets line. Only the front ranks of the column can shoot whereas the entire line can fire into the column. |
The tactical formation that
defined the British infantry – and that was made possible by the countless
hours of drill endured by its professional soldiers – was the line
formation. The line formation allowed a
British infantry battalion to deliver an incredible amount of firepower for the
early nineteenth century – as much as 2,000 rounds per minute. Moreover, it allowed every soldier in the
unit to bring his weapon to bear on the enemy formation. Contrast this to the French column. In the column formation, soldiers marching
together in one or more files, in which the file is significantly longer than
the width of ranks in the formation. The
column formation was significantly easier to teach to less experienced
soldiers, much easier to control in battle, allowed the unit rapid movement and
made for a very effective charge due to weight of numbers. However, by its nature, only a fraction of
its muskets would be able to open fire. During the Napoleonic Wars, the British Army
adopted a thin two-rank line formation which compensated for its relative lack
of numbers and maximized its fire frontage.
The Duke of Wellington |
When columns met disciplined
lines, the firepower advantage of the line told, and the columns were, time and
time again, shattered. In this way,
numerically inferior British formations consistently defeated far larger French
forces. The firepower advantage derived
not only from the British Army’s formations, but also from its high standard of
firearms training. Whereas the conscripts
in European armies may have trained with their muskets by going through the
motions of loading and firing, the British Army regularly used live service
ammunition in training. Units were
expected to train to a standard of three rounds per minute (the French
conscripts could generally manage two), and well trained veterans could fire as
many as five per minute.
The smoothbore India
Pattern infantry musket, or Brown Bess, used by the British Army fired a .75
caliber soft lead ball weighing a bit more than an ounce. When several hundred were discharged by a
tightly packed line formation at a massed column of men 50 yards away, the
leading ranks of the column went down as though cut by a scythe.
"Brown Bess" or India Pattern Musket |
The Brown Bess was equipped with a seventeen inch
long bayonet that fit onto the weapon’s muzzle.
Triangular in cross section, it inflicted fearsome wounds. Once the enemy column had been halted or
dazed by the slaughter inflicted by the constant drumming of the line’s
regular, steady volleys, the infantry was loosed in a bayonet charge. The shock effect of the bayonet charge broke
many French attacks during the war.
The Regency/Napoleonic British
Army was marked by high standards of professionalism and discipline. Importantly, its officers weren’t princes and
its soldiers weren’t supermen. They were
ordinary people who regularly performed extraordinary feats, aided by a culture
that prized discipline and honor and at the same time extolled fierceness and
savagery in combat. This “everyman” motif
is especially useful when crafting heroes (and villains) who are tempered by
the combination of discipline and combat into whatever your book or screenplay
demands.