Understanding Infantry Tactics in the Napoleonic Wars

Why Troops Fought in Close Order 📏

The Napoleonic Wars witnessed infantry formations that might seem counterintuitive today. Soldiers stood shoulder to shoulder in ‘close order’ despite being easy targets for enemy artillery and musket fire. Why was this the norm?

Command and Control 🎤

In the chaos of battle, effective communication was paramount. Before the advent of radios, orders had to be relayed through:

These methods were already challenging to use amidst the battle’s smoke and din, but scattering troops would render them almost impossible.

Firepower 💥

The smoothbore muskets used during this era were notoriously inaccurate beyond about 80 yards. Thus, volley fire, where soldiers fired en masse, was the preferred tactic to maximize both physical and psychological damage on the enemy.

Morale 💪

Standing as a cohesive unit allowed soldiers to bolster each other’s morale. They were far more willing to advance into danger or hold the line when flanked by their comrades, sharing the risks and motivating each other.

Defense Against Cavalry 🐎

Scattered infantrymen were easy pickings for cavalry. By sticking together, troops presented a formidable wall that horsemen could not easily penetrate.

The Structure of a Battalion 🏢

The basic tactical unit of infantry was the battalion. Let’s delve deeply into the makeup of a typical French line battalion.

Numbers and Companies 📊

In theory, a French line battalion should have 840 men, but actual campaign strengths were closer to five to six hundred. Our example here considers a battalion of 605 men, a typical number for battalions actively engaged in campaigns.

Company Breakdown 🧩

The battalion was divided into six companies:

#### Skirmishers: The Light Infantry 🚶‍♂️

Skirmishers operated independently, utilized cover, and fired at will to disrupt and unsettle the enemy. They were pivotal in preventing enemy skirmishers from carrying out their own harassment roles. Most armies also maintained specialist light infantry units for skirmishing roles, such as:

Main Battlefield Formations 🐾

Infantry formations varied depending on the situation within the battle. Here, we explore the primary formations and their strategic purposes.

The Line Formation 🚶‍♀️🚶‍♂️🚶

The traditional battlefield arrangement was the line formation, where all companies assembled alongside each other, three ranks deep. The key advantages were:

However, the line formation was extremely vulnerable to cavalry if outflanked, and it was difficult to maintain a straight line while advancing over uneven terrain.

Column of Divisions 📏🪖

For manoeuvring and attacking, battalions often used a ‘column of divisions’ formation. This setup:

Theoretically, battalions deployed from column into line before engaging with the enemy. However, transitioning to a line under fire was often impractical, so some commanders kept their troops in column, relying on sheer momentum to break enemy lines. This risky tactic could work against inexperienced troops but resulted in heavy casualties against well-trained infantry like the British redcoats.

Defensive Formations Against Cavalry 🛡️🐎

Cavalry posed a significant threat to scattered infantry, which necessitated specific defensive formations.

#### The Square Formation 🔲

Another key formation was the square, typically formed when there was sufficient time to organize:

Changing formations quickly and efficiently under fire required rigorous training and experience.

The Advent of the ‘Battalion Mass’ Formation 🏛️🔄

In 1809, the Austrian army introduced the ‘battalion mass’ formation. This crude formation was:

However, it could quickly close up to repel cavalry, operating on the same principle as a square without the complex drill, and was more manoeuvrable.

Conclusion 📝

Understanding the tactical intricacies of the Napoleonic Wars underscores the strategic complexities these soldiers faced on the battlefield. From close order formations to maintain morale and firepower, to the evolution of defensive tactics against cavalry, these maneuvers required rigorous training, discipline, and quick adaptation under fire.

Each tactic—whether the line, the column, or the square—was a calculated decision to balance offensive capability with defensive necessities, weighing the risk of enemy cavalry against the threat of artillery fire. Thus, what might appear as outdated or impractical from a modern viewpoint, held significant strategic advantages given the warfare technology and battlefield communication constraints of the time.